Hi, I am currently working on a patch which allows an SDB client to set a schema on the SDBConnection (based on sdb 1.3.2). Unfortunately, it is quite a bit of work since SDB code is not well abstracted over the table names. However, we need it for a few reasons:
1) compliance in our infrastructure (i.e. we are not allowed to use user schemas - the typical default for most databases) 2) the ability to setup more than one SDB within one database. The use of schemas permits this setup and this would be an adoption blocker for us 3) it is generally not easy in our deployment to figure out what user name is used to create tables. At the same time, some db commands (optimization calls typically) require schema names, so control of the schema names helps a lot here The patch I am working on is backward compatible, i.e. if you don't set the schema, the behavior should be as before. I don't know yet if I will be able to contribute it (I need internal approval for that first). However, conceptually it is not difficult, it is just a lot of work to scan the code and find all the right spots my question: is there some specific reason why this option was not considered? Was it just because nobody asked for it? thanks, Simon ([email protected])
