> No, I meant that we wouldn't have physically separate databases anymore
> within an installation, but would provide the illusion of it via
> schemas. So, only one pg_class (for example) per installation.
> This would simplify life in a number of areas... but there are downsides
> to it as well, of course.
Oops. This seems the wrong way to go. Increasing coupling between
databases to support schemas really means that we've traded one feature
for another, not increased our feature set.
Schemas are intended to help logically partition a work area/database.
We will need to implement the SQL99 path lookup scheme for finding
resources within a schema-divided database. But imho most installations
will still want resource- and permissions-partitioning between different
databases, and schemas should figure out how to fit within a single
database.
I didn't participate in the tablespace discussion because there seems to
be several PoV's well represented, but I'm interested in the schema
issue ;)
- Thomas