| 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: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | AW: Big 7.1 open items |
| Date: | 2000-06-26 07:57:43 |
| Message-ID: | 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C605BA5989@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> In my mind the point of the "database" concept is to provide a domain
> within which custom datatypes and functions are available. Schemas
> will control the visibility of tables, but SQL92 hasn't thought about
> controlling visibility of datatypes or functions. So I think we will
> still want "database" = "span of applicability of system catalogs"
> and multiple databases allowed per installation, even though there may
> be schemas subdividing the database(s).
Yes, and people wanting only one database like in Oracle will simply only
create one database. The only issue I can think of is that they can have
some "default database" other than the current dbname=username, so
they don't need to worry about it.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Mount | 2000-06-26 08:06:12 | Contacting me |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-06-26 06:51:23 | Re: Server process exited with status 139 (meaning?) |