Re: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. MySQL
От | Thomas Lockhart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. MySQL |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3969EE4A.794D251D@alumni.caltech.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. MySQL (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. MySQL
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> No, I meant that we wouldn't have physically separate databases anymore > within an installation, but would provide the illusion of it via > schemas. So, only one pg_class (for example) per installation. > This would simplify life in a number of areas... but there are downsides > to it as well, of course. Oops. This seems the wrong way to go. Increasing coupling between databases to support schemas really means that we've traded one feature for another, not increased our feature set. Schemas are intended to help logically partition a work area/database. We will need to implement the SQL99 path lookup scheme for finding resources within a schema-divided database. But imho most installations will still want resource- and permissions-partitioning between different databases, and schemas should figure out how to fit within a single database. I didn't participate in the tablespace discussion because there seems to be several PoV's well represented, but I'm interested in the schema issue ;) - Thomas
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: