Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fernando Nasser
Subject Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
Date
Msg-id 3C4DD34F.CC4D8B6@redhat.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Huh?  You seem to be assuming that we need to support both the
> historical Postgres behavior and the SQL-standard behavior with exactly
> the same configuration switches.  That's not how I'm seeing it at all.
> The way I'm envisioning it, you could get either the historical
> behavior, or the standard's behavior, depending on how you set up the
> configuration variables.  

Then we can live just with the schema being the ownership.

Switches set to standard:
 schema search path = ("user's own schema", postgres)
 [ default creation schema = user's own schema ]  same as below,                                                  we
don'tneed this
 
switch

Switches set to historical:
 schema search path = (user's own schema, "any" schema, postgres)
 [ default creation schema = user's own schema ]

The searching in "any" schema (i.e., any owner) will let will find 
things that where defined the way they are today, i.e., possibly
by several different users.


P.S.: You can even add the "default" schema in the standard case and
I believe you are still compliant and can handle things easier: schema search path = ("user's own schema", postgres)


Maybe you could give an example of a case where the schema meaning
ownership breaks things.  Or what kind of additional things you have
in mind that would require orthogonal schema and ownership spaces.


Regards,
Fernando




-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd.                     E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Chris Humphries
Date:
Subject: TODO question and claim
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: TODO question and claim