Greetings,
* Noah Misch (noah@leadboat.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 09:28:21PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > > I wonder whether it'd be sensible for CREATE USER --- or at least the
> > > createuser script --- to automatically make a matching schema. Or we
> > > could just recommend that DBAs do so. Either way, we'd be pushing people
> > > towards the design where "$user" does exist for most/all users. Our docs
> > > comment (section 5.8.7) that "the concepts of schema and user are nearly
> > > equivalent in a database system that implements only the basic schema
> > > support specified in the standard", so the idea of automatically making
> > > a schema per user doesn't seem ridiculous on its face. (Now, where'd I
> > > put my flameproof long johns ...)
> >
> > You are not the first to think of this in recent days, and I'm hopeful
> > to see others comment in support of this idea. For my 2c, I'd suggest
> > that what we actually do is have a new role attribute which is "when
> > this user connects to a database, if they don't have a schema named
> > after their role, then create one." Creating the role at CREATE ROLE
> > time would only work for the current database, after all (barring some
> > other magic that allows us to create schemas in all current and future
> > databases...).
>
> I like the idea of getting more SQL-compatible, if this presents a distinct
> opportunity to do so. I do think it would be too weird to create the schema
> in one database only. Creating it on demand might work. What would be the
> procedure, if any, for database owners who want to deny object creation in
> their databases?
My suggestion was that this would be a role attribute. If an
administrator doesn't wish for that role to have a schema created
on-demand at login time, they would set the 'SCHEMA_CREATE' (or whatever
we name it) role attribute to false.
Thanks!
Stephen
