On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 01:23:57AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
>
> > My opinion
> > 3) database and tablespace are relatively irrelevant.
> > I assume PostgreSQL's database would correspond
> > to the concept of SCHEMA.
>
> My inclindation is that tablespaces should be installation-wide, but
> I'm not completely sold on it. In any case I could see wanting a
> permissions mechanism that would only allow some databases to have
> tables in a particular tablespace.
>
> We do need to think more about how traditional Postgres databases
> fit together with SCHEMA. Maybe we wouldn't even need multiple
> databases per installation if we had SCHEMA done right.
>
The important point I think is that tablespaces are about physical
storage/namespace, and SCHEMA are about logical namespace: it would make
sense for tables from multiple schema to live in the same tablespace,
as well as tables from one schema to be stored in multiple tablespaces.
Ross
--
Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu>
NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer
Computer and Information Technology Institute
Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005
