Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

AW: Big 7.1 open items

From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: AW: Big 7.1 open items
Date: 2000-06-21 13:14:51
Message-ID: 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C605BA5985@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> My inclindation is that tablespaces should be installation-wide, but
> I'm not completely sold on it.  In any case I could see wanting a
> permissions mechanism that would only allow some databases to have
> tables in a particular tablespace.

I fully second that.

> We do need to think more about how traditional Postgres databases
> fit together with SCHEMA.  Maybe we wouldn't even need multiple
> databases per installation if we had SCHEMA done right.

This gives me the goose bumps. A schema is something that is below
the database hierarchy. It is the owner of a table. We lack the ability
to qualify a tablemname with an owner like "owner".tabname .
Can we please agree to that much ?

Andreas 

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-06-21 14:55:39
Subject: Re: Big 7.1 open items
Previous:From: Zeugswetter Andreas SBDate: 2000-06-21 13:02:40
Subject: AW: Big 7.1 open items

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group