From: | Peter Harvey <pharvey(at)codebydesign(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
Date: | 2002-01-22 01:39:05 |
Message-ID: | 02012117390500.02279@p12.codebydesign.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
FYI: Applications like Data Architect would benefit from a consistent and
complete interface to the schema. For example; I found that we had to bypass
the DD views which exist (as I recall) because they did not give us all
information we needed. So we selected stuff from the system tables directly.
Yucky. Sorry I can not recall details but thought that I would mention this
here. The MySQL 'SHOW' statements seem to work pretty well and shields us
from changes to the system tables.
Peter
> I don't buy that premise. It's true that SQL92 equates ownership of a
> schema with ownership of the objects therein, but AFAICS we have no hope
> of being forward-compatible with existing database setups (wherein there
> can be multiple tables of different ownership all in a single namespace)
> if we don't allow varying ownership within a schema. I think we can
> arrange things so that we are upward compatible with both SQL92 and
> the old way. Haven't worked out details yet though.
>
> Have to run, more later.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-01-22 01:47:30 | Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-22 01:06:30 | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |