| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bill Cunningham <billc(at)ballydev(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-interfaces <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Schemas: status report, call for developers |
| Date: | 2002-06-08 04:53:29 |
| Message-ID: | 11633.1023512009@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I am a little uncomfortable about this. It means that CREATE TABLE will
> create a table in 'public' if the user doesn't have a schema of their
> own, and in their private schema if it exists. I seems strange to have
> such a distinction based on whether a private schema exists. Is this OK?
You have a better idea?
Given that we want to support both backwards-compatible and SQL-spec-
compatible behavior, I think some such ugliness is inevitable.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Shattuck | 2002-06-08 05:41:26 | Re: How can we help? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-06-08 04:47:56 | Re: Internals question about buffers |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-06-08 05:42:35 | Re: [HACKERS] Schemas: status report, call for developers |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-06-08 04:42:20 | Re: [HACKERS] Schemas: status report, call for developers |