Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.30.0201222042400.686-100000@peter.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes: > I really don't see what's wrong with building a namespace mechanism > that is orthogonal to ownership and then using that to implement what > SQL92 wants. I think this will be cleaner, simpler, and more flexible > than trying to equate ownership with namespace. OK, I can accept that. But then I want to get back at my original point, namely that all database objects (except users and groups) should be in schemas. This is also cleaner, simpler, and more flexible. There is clearly demand for schema-local functions. So I think that designing this system from the premise that a schema-qualified operator call will look strange is the wrong end to start at. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: