| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, 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 22:36:28 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0006221913490.4086-100000@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
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.
The way I see it is that schemas are required to be a logical hierarchy,
whereas implementations may see catalogs as a physical division (as indeed
this implementation does).
> So I think we will still want "database" = "span of applicability of
> system catalogs"
Yes, because the system catalogs would live in a schema of their own.
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-06-22 22:39:25 | Re: NOTICES about portals |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-06-22 22:36:03 | Re: Makefile.global is kind of a pain |