| From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "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: | RE: Big 7.1 open items |
| Date: | 2000-06-22 23:35:12 |
| Message-ID: | 000001bfdca2$82fd1520$2801007e@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Eisentraut
>
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > In my mind the point of the "database" concept is to provide a domain
> > within which custom datatypes and functions are available.
>
AFAIK few users understand it and many users have wondered
why we couldn't issue cross "database" queries.
> Quoth SQL99:
>
> "A user-defined type is a schema object"
>
> "An SQL-invoked routine is an element of an SQL-schema"
>
> I have yet to see anything in SQL that's a per-catalog object. Some things
> are global, like users, but everything else is per-schema.
>
So why is system catalog needed per "database" ?
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-06-22 23:55:15 | Re: Big 7.1 open items |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-06-22 23:30:15 | Re: NOTICES about portals |