Andreas wrote:
>
> >> the table or even discover that it exists!
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Not in 6.3, or maybe ever. Too much OO stuff for that, I think.
>
> I vote for not ever. No commercial DBMS has it. It is a standard
> that is of very restricted practicability. You can always split into
> different
> databases whatever needs turbo security.
I'm not quite sure if any commercial RDMBS does it. But since
we don't have the ability to create multiple tables/views of
the same name as long as the owner differs, I think it's
better to stay as we are. As long as PostgreSQL cannot
distinguish tables of the same name by a <user>.tablename
syntax, it's better to let them know what tables already
exist.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #
