OK, so the proposal is that we dissociate the ownership from the
namespace when we implement our version of SQL-Schemas, right?
This way an object will have both an owner and a schema (while in
the standard they are the same thing).
The important is not much to accommodate someone who is creating
schemas (a new thing, so objects can be created the "right" way)
but rather to accommodate current code that does not use schemas
and have several owners for the objects (which would all fall
into a "default" schema). Can you agree with that?
I was looking to see if we choose the proper defaults and search paths
and the "default" schema we could make it look for SQL-compliant code
as if it was a vanilla SQL-Schemas implementation.
To support the current database schema definitions (without SQL-Schemas
and with different owners), things would be created with the current
user authorization id and will have its name defined in the "default"
SQL-Schema
namespace. Also, when referring to an object if the name is not
qualified
with the schema name, the search would go through the schema with the
current authorization id (as required by the std) and proceed to check
the "default" schema.
The only problem in the scenario above is that the standard says that
when creating objects and not specifying the schema the schema name
should be assumed to be the current user authorization id (or whatever
authorization id the code is running as). In our case it would go to
the default schema. If someone wants the SQL std behavior then, he/she
must create things inside a CREATE SCHEMA statement or explicitly
qualify
with the schema name the objects being created. Can we live with that?
Will we pass the conformance tests? (I saw tests that test the schema
name
that is assumed when referencing but I do not recall seeing one that
tests
what is assumed on creation -- things I saw were all created inside
CREATE SCHEMA statements. Note, also, that passing the NIST tests
doesn't
make us compliant if we know that we are doing something different than
what is specified -- it just means that we got away with it :-)
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
