Re: Schema bug
От | Guillaume LELARGE |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Schema bug |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200512150040.15195.guillaume.lelarge@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Schema bug (Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de>) |
Список | pgadmin-hackers |
Le Mercredi 14 Décembre 2005 18:14, Andreas Pflug a écrit : > Dave Page wrote: > >>I'm still not convinced we need to do anything. Renaming public is > >>highly irregular, and finally showing system objects will make it > >>reappear. The schema restriction allows individual filters > >>who likes it. > > > > Renaming public is irregular, but if we can allow it without breaking > > anything else, then I see no reason why we shouldn't do it. > > So for god's sake do implement it, but in general I'm less than inclined > to implement workarounds for people doing weird things to the db. I'm > waiting for the guy who claims that his "was-public" schema suddenly > reapperars in pgadmin, while he just renamed it to have it hidden from > the users.... There *are* admins that deliberately rename pg objects to > hide them from pgadmin's sight. > I can understand some of your feelings but not this one. If an admin don't want the public schema, they just have to drop it. Juste take a look at the PostgreSQL manual : « There is nothing special about the public schema except that it exists by default. It can be dropped, too. » « Also, there is no concept of a public schema in the SQL standard. For maximum conformance to the standard, you should not use (perhaps even remove) the public schema. » From http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/ddl-schemas.html -- Guillaume. <!-- http://abs.traduc.org/ http://lfs.traduc.org/ http://traduc.postgresqlfr.org/ -->
В списке pgadmin-hackers по дате отправления: