Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
От | Fernando Nasser |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3C4DD34F.CC4D8B6@redhat.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > > Huh? You seem to be assuming that we need to support both the > historical Postgres behavior and the SQL-standard behavior with exactly > the same configuration switches. That's not how I'm seeing it at all. > The way I'm envisioning it, you could get either the historical > behavior, or the standard's behavior, depending on how you set up the > configuration variables. Then we can live just with the schema being the ownership. Switches set to standard: schema search path = ("user's own schema", postgres) [ default creation schema = user's own schema ] same as below, we don'tneed this switch Switches set to historical: schema search path = (user's own schema, "any" schema, postgres) [ default creation schema = user's own schema ] The searching in "any" schema (i.e., any owner) will let will find things that where defined the way they are today, i.e., possibly by several different users. P.S.: You can even add the "default" schema in the standard case and I believe you are still compliant and can handle things easier: schema search path = ("user's own schema", postgres) Maybe you could give an example of a case where the schema meaning ownership breaks things. Or what kind of additional things you have in mind that would require orthogonal schema and ownership spaces. Regards, Fernando -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: