On Thursday 26 June 2003 21:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> writes:
> > Well, consider this. Keep in mind that all of them are directories..
>
> I can see no reason that we'd want a level of directory associated with
> schemas...
Moving a multi-hundreds-of-GB table across schemas would be sooo easy..:-)
I don't know how difficult/time consuming that is right now. Shouldn't be
actually if PG updates the schema contents in it's catalog but anyway..
I just put it for clarification. If PG can do everything directory has to
offer, well, we don't need directory for schemas.
Shridhar
