| 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: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | AW: Big 7.1 open items |
| Date: | 2000-06-21 13:14:51 |
| Message-ID: | 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C605BA5985@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> My inclindation is that tablespaces should be installation-wide, but
> I'm not completely sold on it. In any case I could see wanting a
> permissions mechanism that would only allow some databases to have
> tables in a particular tablespace.
I fully second that.
> We do need to think more about how traditional Postgres databases
> fit together with SCHEMA. Maybe we wouldn't even need multiple
> databases per installation if we had SCHEMA done right.
This gives me the goose bumps. A schema is something that is below
the database hierarchy. It is the owner of a table. We lack the ability
to qualify a tablemname with an owner like "owner".tabname .
Can we please agree to that much ?
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-06-21 14:55:39 | Re: Big 7.1 open items |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-06-21 13:02:40 | AW: Big 7.1 open items |