On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 02:43:38PM -0400, Matthew T. OConnor wrote:
> > As someone else mentioned (I think), even using a separate schema is not
> > always an acceptable option. If you are using a "packaged" application
> > (whether commercial or open source), you usually don't want *any*
> > changes to the vendor provided database. Particularly with commercial
> > software, that can mean loss of, or problems with, technical support, or
> > problems when upgrading.
>
> Agreed, but if the information is to be stored using the database server at
> all, then I think this option should be left in since some users probably
> don't mind the clutter, and will not be allowed to create a new database or
> schemea.
I'm a bit late on this discussion, but I, for one, have liked having
some of the pgaccess info stored with the database. That way, no matter
what machine I connect to the DB from, I get the same set of functions,
queries, and schema-documents.
BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual schema in 7.3,
that'll get confusing.
Ross
