Schemas (Re: AW: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1)
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Schemas (Re: AW: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0011091635030.1244-100000@peter.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: AW: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1 (Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>) |
Ответы |
Re: Schemas (Re: AW: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump
and objects inherited from template1)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Philip Warner writes: > I'd be very interested if someone could post the current thinking re: > schemas, catalogs, and environments, because the way I read the SQL99 docs, > the catalog seems to correspond to a single postgres installation, and a > schema seems to correspond to a postgres database (ie. tables and views are > defined in a schema, and schemas are defined in a catalog, and catalogs are > defined in an environment, and it looks like the environment is akin to the > file system/implementation & postmaster). The thing you get from initdb is a "cluster of catalogs", a database is a "catalog", a schema is something below a catalog. (There is no such thing as an "environment" as a hierarchy level.) The idea was most likely that a schema would be a purely logical hierarchy but a catalog may be a physical hierarchy. (For example, it is not required that you can access more than one catalog from a connection.) I think all people that were interested in this issue agreed with this. (If not, you better speak up, because I'd like to see schemas implemented ASAP.) -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: