On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Richard Troy wrote:
> > In more specific terms, and I'm just brainstorming in public here, perhaps
> > we can use the power of Schemas within a database to manage such
> > divisions; commands which pertain to replication can/would include a
> > schema specifier and elements within the schema can be replicated one way
> > or another, at the whim of the DBA / Architect. For backwards
> > compatability, if a schema isn't specified, it indicates that command
> > pertains to the entire database.
>
> I understand that you're just thinking aloud, but overloading namespaces
> in this way strikes me as awful. Applications and extensions, which are
> the things that have need of namespaces, should not have to care about
> replication. If we have to design them for replication we'll be on a
> fast track to nowhere IMNSHO.
Well, Andrew, replication _is_ an application. Or, you could think of
replication as an extension to an application. I was under the impression
that_users_ decide to put tables in schema spaces based upon _user_ need,
and that Postgres developer's use of them for other purposes was
incroaching on user choices, not the other way around. Either way,
claiming "need" like this strikes me as stuck-in-a-rut or dogmatic
thinking. Besides, don't we have schema nesting to help resolve any such
"care?" And, what do you mean by "design them for replication?"
While I'm in no way stuck on blending replication strategies via schemas,
it does strike me as an appropriate concept and I'd preferr to have it
evaluated based on technical merrit - possibly citing workarounds or
solutions to technical issues, which is what I gather has been the
tradition of this group: Use case first, technical merrit second... Other
alternatives, ISTM, will have virtually the same look/feel as a schema
from an external perspective, and the more I think of it the more I think
using schemas is a sound, clean approach. That it offends someones sense
of asthetics STM a poor rationale for not choosing it. Another question
might be: What's lacking in the implementation of schemas that makes this
a poor choice, and what could be done about it without much effort?
Regards,
Richard
--
Richard Troy, Chief Scientist
Science Tools Corporation
510-924-1363 or 202-747-1263
rtroy@ScienceTools.com, http://ScienceTools.com/
