Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > Remember that a schema is a named representation of ownership, so anything
> > that can be owned must be in a schema. (Unless you want to invent a
> > parallel universe for a different kind of ownership, which would be
> > incredibly confusing.)
>
> I don't buy that premise. It's true that SQL92 equates ownership of a
> schema with ownership of the objects therein, but AFAICS we have no hope
> of being forward-compatible with existing database setups (wherein there
> can be multiple tables of different ownership all in a single namespace)
> if we don't allow varying ownership within a schema. I think we can
> arrange things so that we are upward compatible with both SQL92 and
> the old way. Haven't worked out details yet though.
>
Peter is right. Schemas is just a practical way of creating things
under
the same authorization-id + crating a namespace so that different
authorization-ids can have objects with the same (unqualified name).
Quoting Date (pg. 221): "The schema authID for a given schema identifies
the owner of that schema (and hence the owner of everything described by
that schema also)."
It is very important that we reach a conclusion on this as it simplifies
things a lot.
Regards,
Fernando
P.S.: That is why I was telling you that, except for the namespace part,
we already have the groundwork for Entry-level SQL-Schemas (where the
schema is always the authorization-id of the creator) -- it is just
a question of handling the "owner" appropriately.
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
