Re: AW: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pete Forman
Subject Re: AW: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1
Date
Msg-id 14858.52752.454996.583633@marvin.bedford.waii.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: AW: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1  (Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>)
List pgsql-hackers
Philip Warner writes:> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think most people will equate database> with a schema (ie. the thing in
whichyou define tables).
 

I agree with most of what you say.  However I am used to conflating
catalog with database.  For example, the last product I put together
had one read-only schema and created one schema per project managed.
The client code accessed two or more schemata at a time.  We used the
term database to mean all the schemata.
-- 
Pete Forman                 -./\.- Disclaimer: This post is originated
Western Geophysical           -./\.-  by myself and does not represent
pete.forman@westgeo.com         -./\.-  the opinion of Baker Hughes or
http://www.crosswinds.net/~petef  -./\.-  its divisions.
***==  My old email address gsez020@kryten.bedford.waii.com will ==***
***==  not be operational from Fri 10 to Tue 14 Nov 2000.        ==***


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB
Date:
Subject: AW: AW: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inhe rited from template1
Next
From: "Ross J. Reedstrom"
Date:
Subject: Re: AW: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1