
> BTW, schemas do make things interesting for the other camp:
> is it possible for the same table to be referenced by different
> names in different schemas?  If so, just how useful is it to pick
> one of those names arbitrarily for the filename?  This is an advanced
> version of the main objection to using the original relname and not
> updating it at RENAME TABLE --- sooner or later, the filenames are
> going to be more confusing than helpful.
> 
> Comments?  Have I missed something important about schemas?

I think we have to agree on the way we want schemas to be.
Imho (and in other db's) the schema is simply the owner of a table.

The owner is an optional part of the table keyword ( select * from
"owner".tabname ).
It also implys that different owners can have a table with the same name
in the same database. (this is only implemented in some other db Systems)

Our database concept is and imho should not be altered, thus we keep the
hierarchy dbname --> owner(=schema) --> tablename.

Andreas



Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:16:14 +0200
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
AW: Big 7.1 open items 