Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Remember that a schema is a named representation of ownership, so anything
> that can be owned must be in a schema. (Unless you want to invent a
> parallel universe for a different kind of ownership, which would be
> incredibly confusing.)
I don't buy that premise. It's true that SQL92 equates ownership of a
schema with ownership of the objects therein, but AFAICS we have no hope
of being forward-compatible with existing database setups (wherein there
can be multiple tables of different ownership all in a single namespace)
if we don't allow varying ownership within a schema. I think we can
arrange things so that we are upward compatible with both SQL92 and
the old way. Haven't worked out details yet though.
Have to run, more later.
regards, tom lane
