> I have also mentioned this on two occasions now, and each has met with
> total silence. I have come to interpret this to mean either (a) the idea is
> too stupid to rate a comment, or (b) go ahead with the proposal. Since I am
> not really proposing anything, I assume the correct interpretation
At 17:34 9/11/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>The thing you get from initdb is a "cluster of catalogs", a database is a
>"catalog", a schema is something below a catalog. (There is no such
>thing as an "environment" as a hierarchy level.)
I think that's what SQL99 calls the 'cluster of cat
At 17:10 9/11/00 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
>
>> 3. Schemas are what we call databases. They contain tables, views wtc.
>
>Let us not start this all over again. Our database would correspond to a
catalog
>if we put schemas below our database hierarchy.
>
>The standard requires, that you
Philip Warner writes:
> I'd be very interested if someone could post the current thinking re:
> schemas, catalogs, and environments, because the way I read the SQL99 docs,
> the catalog seems to correspond to a single postgres installation, and a
> schema seems to correspond to a postgres databas
Phil -
My take on this can be found at:
http://www.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-hackers/2000-03/msg00137.html
Peter agrees with me (from my personal archive: the postgresql.org one
has holes in it!):
http://cooker.ir.rice.edu/postgresql/msg19913.html
There was another discussion, a little ear
Philip Warner writes:
> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think most people will equate database
> with a schema (ie. the thing in which you define tables).
I agree with most of what you say. However I am used to conflating
catalog with database. For example, the last product I put together
had one re
> I agree; it's a pain that one DB misbehaving kills an entire installation.
If that is of concern you need separate postmasters, no way around that,
and imho not a problem at all.
Andreas
> 3. Schemas are what we call databases. They contain tables, views wtc.
Let us not start this all over again. Our database would correspond to a catalog
if we put schemas below our database hierarchy.
The standard requires, that you see all schemas within one catalog in
one user session. We d
Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the hierarchy goes:
> Environment->Catalog->Schema
> From what I can tell:
> 1. the environment contains truly general things like the SQL parser, the
> tools for connecting to the DB etc - which I assume also contains the
> user-authorizatio
At 10:36 9/11/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Presumably this was raised before, but I'd love to see the consensus view,
>> if it is documented.
>
>AFAIR, the discussion trailed off without any specific decisions being
>made. One of the things that's still
> To me, though, the point of independent databases is that they be
> *independent*, and therefore if we keep them I'd vote for mapping them
> to the top-level SQL notion (catalog, you said?). Schemas ought to be
> substructure within a database.
Yes, that was also "sort of" the bottom line of
Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Presumably this was raised before, but I'd love to see the consensus view,
> if it is documented.
AFAIR, the discussion trailed off without any specific decisions being
made. One of the things that's still very open in my mind is whether
we want to kee
At 08:59 9/11/00 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
>
>> Just seems like we'd be forcing non-standard syntax on
>> ourselves when/if
>> CREATE DATABASE becomes CREATE SCHEMA;
>
>I do not think this will be the way.
>
I know there was a lot of discussion of this a while ago, but was there a
con
> >Do we still need the lastsysoid column in pg_database if we do things
> >this way? Seems like what you really want is to suppress all the
> >objects that are in template0, so you really only need one lastsysoid
> >value, namely template0's. The other entries are useless AFAICS.
> Where woul
> Just seems like we'd be forcing non-standard syntax on
> ourselves when/if
> CREATE DATABASE becomes CREATE SCHEMA;
I do not think this will be the way.
> I would assume that the two
> statements would become synonymous?
No, I think we need the schema below the database hierarchy.
Thus you
> I like that a lot. Solves the whole problem at a stroke, and even
> adds some extra functionality (alternate templates).
>
> Do we need an actual enforcement mechanism for "don't modify
> template0"?
> I think we could live without that for now. If you're
> worried about it,
> one way woul
16 matches
Mail list logo
