Tom Lane writes:
> In my mind the point of the "database" concept is to provide a domain
> within which custom datatypes and functions are available.
Quoth SQL99:
"A user-defined type is a schema object"
"An SQL-invoked routine is an element of an SQL-schema"
I have yet to see anything in SQL that's a per-catalog object. Some things
are global, like users, but everything else is per-schema.
The way I see it is that schemas are required to be a logical hierarchy,
whereas implementations may see catalogs as a physical division (as indeed
this implementation does).
> So I think we will still want "database" = "span of applicability of
> system catalogs"
Yes, because the system catalogs would live in a schema of their own.
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
