[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-12565) Extend test coverage [IGNITE-9279] Support custom default SQL schema name

Ivan Pavlukhin created IGNITE-12565: --- Summary: Extend test coverage [IGNITE-9279] Support custom default SQL schema name Key: IGNITE-12565 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12565

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-9279) Support custom default SQL schema name.

Andrew Mashenkov created IGNITE-9279: Summary: Support custom default SQL schema name. Key: IGNITE-9279 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9279 Project: Ignite Issue Type

Re: Default SQL schema name

+1 for public > On May 29, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote: > > +1 for public > it make sense when copy-pasting SQL queries from ignite to H2 in order to > check how sql works. > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn > wrote: >

Re: Default SQL schema name

+1 for public it make sense when copy-pasting SQL queries from ignite to H2 in order to check how sql works. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > If "public" is already in H2, then it makes sense to use it. > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Sergey

Re: Default SQL schema name

If "public" is already in H2, then it makes sense to use it. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Sergey Kozlov wrote: > I vote for "public". I assume we may need "ignite" word for future as > reserved word for SQL syntax extensions ... > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:14 PM,

Re: Default SQL schema name

I vote for "public". I assume we may need "ignite" word for future as reserved word for SQL syntax extensions ... On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Taras Ledkov wrote: > I'm OK with 'public'. > > Does the "default schema" mean (for Ignite) that all object are contained > in

Re: Default SQL schema name

+1 for public Kind regards, Alex. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Taras Ledkov wrote: > I'm OK with 'public'. > > Does the "default schema" mean (for Ignite) that all object are contained > in the schema is available without a schema specification? > > > > On 29.05.2017

Re: Default SQL schema name

I'm OK with 'public'. Does the "default schema" mean (for Ignite) that all object are contained in the schema is available without a schema specification? On 29.05.2017 16:54, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: Folks, I am going to introduce predefined SQL schema which is always accessible on all

Re: Default SQL schema name

+1 for ignite пн, 29 мая 2017 г. в 17:03, Igor Sapego : > I like "ignite" as it has lower chance to interfere with anything > which is already reserved. > > Best Regards, > Igor > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Sergi Vladykin > wrote: > > >

Re: Default SQL schema name

I like "ignite" as it has lower chance to interfere with anything which is already reserved. Best Regards, Igor On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Sergi Vladykin wrote: > PUBLIC is already default schema in H2. You can not even drop it. Oracle > does have PUBLIC schema

Re: Default SQL schema name

PUBLIC is already default schema in H2. You can not even drop it. Oracle does have PUBLIC schema as well. Sergi 2017-05-29 16:54 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov : > Folks, > > I am going to introduce predefined SQL schema which is always accessible on > all Ignite nodes [1]. Now

Re: Default SQL schema name

SQL Server uses "dbo", Oracle uses current user name. I prefer "ignite". It is the only one that makes sense to me of all of the above. "public" - as opposed to "private"? What's the point? Pavel On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Folks, > > I am