
> > And of course the major problem with *that* is how do you get the
> > connection request to arrive at a backend that's been prestarted in
> > the right database?  If you don't commit to a database then there's
> > not a whole lot of prestarting that can be done.
> > 
> > It occurs to me that this'd get a whole lot more feasible if one
> > postmaster == one database, which is something we *could* do if we
> > implemented schemas.  Hiroshi's been arguing that the current hard
> > separation between databases in an installation should be done away
> > with in favor of schemas, and I'm starting to see his point...
> 
> This is interesting.  You believe schema's would allow a pool of
> backends to connect to any database?  That would clearly be a win.

I do not agree. We need to keep the different databases per postmaster.
Schemas are something we need below a database. This is actually 
required by SQL99. More than one database (catalog in SQL99)
is not required per SQL99, but imho a very useful feature.

We need something that allows us to access objects on another database,
but this should imho not be limited to databases on the same postmaster 
(SQL99 cluster).

Andreas 

Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:32:45 +0200
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
AW: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. MySQL