Fabien COELHO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree with the advantage.
>
> But I'm uneasy to know what a special owner would be, pratically speaking.
> If it would mean that everywhere in the source code where an owner is
> manipulated, there must be some kind of special test for that case, I'm
> not sure it would be that great...
Well I can't think of anywhere else in the code that would need this special
case other than creating a database. My thinking is it would otherwise act as
a special user except when you're copying a database it would get mean "set
the owner of this object to the owner of the new database".
> Also any database can be used as a template, not just template1.
> Moreover, template1 is a still usable database, that can be set with
> whatever you want in new created, so it is not "that" special...
Well perhaps it should be an option on create database?
create database foo with template=template1 owner=bar templateowner=baz
Or perhaps it should just default to the name of the template database maybe
the owner of the template database. So these objects would be owned by user
"template1" in the template1 database.
Then If I create a database with
create database user2 with template=user1 owner=user2
then any objects owned by user1 in the template become owned by user2 in the
new database.
Using the owner of the template database has the advantage that you can copy a
copy of a database and get the same result as if you copied the original. Eg,
this would work:
create database template2 with template=template1 owner=template2
create database template3 with template=template2 owner=template3
and the result would be the same as
create database template3 with template=template1 owner=template3
--
greg
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
