Re: Schemas: status report, call for developers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-interfaces" <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Schemas: status report, call for developers
Date: 2002-05-01 03:20:22
Message-ID: 4471.1020223222@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces

"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> What about "CREATE USER tgl WITH SCHEMA;" ?

Uh, what about it? It's not a standard syntax AFAIK.

If I were running an installation where I wanted "one schema per user"
as default, I'd rather have an "auto_create_schema" SET parameter that
told CREATE USER to do the dirty work for me automatically.

But the sneaky part of this is that users are installation-wide,
whereas schemas are only database-wide. To make this really work
painlessly, you'd want some kind of mechanism that'd auto-create
a schema for the user in every database he's allowed access to.
How can we define that cleanly?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ross J. Reedstrom 2002-05-01 03:28:33 Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] Schemas: status report, call for developers
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2002-05-01 02:15:44 Re: Schemas: status report, call for developers

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ross J. Reedstrom 2002-05-01 03:28:33 Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] Schemas: status report, call for developers
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2002-05-01 02:15:44 Re: Schemas: status report, call for developers