Bernt M. Johnsen wrote: >>Satheesh Bandaram commented on DERBY-699: >>----------------------------------------- >> >>Derby needs to treat many schemas starting with SYS.. as system >>schemas... like SYSCAT, SYS, SYSFUN, SYSSTAT, SYSPROC, SYSIBM, >>SYSCS_DIAG, SYSCS_UTIL. It may be possible to add future system >>schemas too, like SYSFUN was added recently. Any change to allow >>user SYS schemas needs to be made very carefully. > > > I agree that Derby needs to reserve a part of the namespace for future > system schema names. But I find it unreasonable to reserve all names > starting with "SYS" because "SYSTEM" is a very common word and that > this would disallow schema names like "SYSTEM_DIAGNOSTICS", > "SYSTEM_STATUS" etc. > > A common prefix like this might be a hurdle for porting existing > schemas and applications to Derby (that's the way I discovered the > restriction). > > I also see from the comments in the code that this restriction was > added as a DB2-compliance, and think that we should revert this > restriction.
Do other databases have restrictions in creating schemas? > The best approach would probably be to add a non-standard character to > the identifiers so that a non-standard prefix could be > used. E.g. "SYS$". That's pretty ugly in my mind, not sure why would would force such use on Derby's users. If we went down this path, then we have a somewhat unique current prefix for some newer system schemas, "SYSCS_". Or something like "SYSDERBY_" could be picked. Dan.
