On Thursday 26 June 2003 21:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, consider this. Keep in mind that all of them are directories..
> I can see no reason that we'd want a level of directory associated with
> schemas...

Moving a multi-hundreds-of-GB table  across schemas would be sooo easy..:-)

I don't know how difficult/time consuming that is right now. Shouldn't be 
actually if PG updates the schema contents in it's catalog but anyway..

I just put it for clarification. If PG can do everything directory has to 
offer, well, we don't need directory for schemas. 


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to