
> Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> > 
> > This would be a *whole* lot simpler if we forgot the notion of "any"
> > and made the search order look like
> > 
> > 	(temp, private, public, system)

I am starting to see the advantages and like it. I also like the exact 
name "public" for the public schema.

Andreas

Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:34:48 +0100
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
> 
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > This would be a *whole* lot simpler if we forgot the notion of "any"
> > > and made the search order look like
> > > 
> > > 	(temp, private, public, system)
> 
> I am starting to see the advantages and like it. I also like the exact 
> name "public" for the public schema.

I wonder if we should think about a 'group' area so people in a group
can create things that others in the group can see, but not people
outside the group.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:52:04 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> I am starting to see the advantages and like it. I also like the exact 
>> name "public" for the public schema.

> I wonder if we should think about a 'group' area so people in a group
> can create things that others in the group can see, but not people
> outside the group.

I see no reason to hard-wire such a concept.  Given createable
namespaces, ACLs for namespaces, and a settable namespace search path,
people can set up group namespaces or anything else they want.

The (temp, private, public, system) path is suggested as default because
it's the minimum we need to support both SQL92 and backwards-compatible
behaviors.  I don't think we should put in special-purpose features
beyond that, when we can instead offer a general mechanism with which
people can build the special-purpose features they want.

			regards, tom lane

Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:04:12 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects 