Hi, > The more I think about this, the more I'm becoming convinced that > specifying an implicit default schema in all generated SQL is a pretty > bad idea. The reason is that it would break a feature in a few > database engines that might be called "schema cascade", or Postgres > explicitly calls the "schema path".
I agree, I think "if you don't specify a schema you don't get one" is a sensible approach. I think this already holds through most of SA though, there's just a few odd places, and I wonder if "drop table" is one of them, resulting in the original cause of this thread. As Mike pointed out, there are some places, e.g. table reflection, where you have to specify a schema. Well, we can't do anything about that, default_schema seems sensible there. I think MSSQL's set_default_schema is a bad idea from the start. People expect it to work as a shortcut for specifying a schema on every table, and it doesn't work like that. I think we should remove it for now. If people do really need such a feature, it should be a cross-db feature, supported by unit tests. Paul --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
