Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> 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 keep the existing notion of independent databases within an
installation, and if so how that maps onto the SQL-defined concepts.
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.
regards, tom lane