On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 02:43:38PM -0400, Matthew T. OConnor wrote: > > As someone else mentioned (I think), even using a separate schema is not > > always an acceptable option. If you are using a "packaged" application > > (whether commercial or open source), you usually don't want *any* > > changes to the vendor provided database. Particularly with commercial > > software, that can mean loss of, or problems with, technical support, or > > problems when upgrading. > > Agreed, but if the information is to be stored using the database server at > all, then I think this option should be left in since some users probably > don't mind the clutter, and will not be allowed to create a new database or > schemea.
I'm a bit late on this discussion, but I, for one, have liked having some of the pgaccess info stored with the database. That way, no matter what machine I connect to the DB from, I get the same set of functions, queries, and schema-documents. BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual schema in 7.3, that'll get confusing. Ross ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
