Re: Big 7.1 open items
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Big 7.1 open items |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0006221913490.4086-100000@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Big 7.1 open items (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
RE: Big 7.1 open items
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes: > In my mind the point of the "database" concept is to provide a domain > within which custom datatypes and functions are available. Quoth SQL99: "A user-defined type is a schema object" "An SQL-invoked routine is an element of an SQL-schema" I have yet to see anything in SQL that's a per-catalog object. Some things are global, like users, but everything else is per-schema. The way I see it is that schemas are required to be a logical hierarchy, whereas implementations may see catalogs as a physical division (as indeed this implementation does). > So I think we will still want "database" = "span of applicability of > system catalogs" Yes, because the system catalogs would live in a schema of their own. -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: