
> > > AFAIK,schema is independent from user in SQL92.
> > > So default_tablespace_per_user doesn't necessarily imply
> > > default_tablespace_per_schema.
> > 
> > Well, sombody must be interpreting this wrong, because 
> > in Informix and Oracle the schema corresponds to the owner
> > and they say they conform to ansi in this regard.
> 
> Is there really a schema:user=1:1 limitation in SQL-92 ?
> Though both SQL-86 and SQL-89 had the limitation
> SQL-92 removed it AFAIK.

As I said in another posting a user does not need to exist
for each schema. The dba can create objects under any 
schema name.

Andreas

Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:00:06 +0200
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
AW: AW: Big 7.1 open items
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org]On
> Behalf Of Zeugswetter Andreas SB
> 
> > > > AFAIK,schema is independent from user in SQL92.
> > > > So default_tablespace_per_user doesn't necessarily imply
> > > > default_tablespace_per_schema.
> > > 
> > > Well, sombody must be interpreting this wrong, because 
> > > in Informix and Oracle the schema corresponds to the owner
> > > and they say they conform to ansi in this regard.
> > 
> > Is there really a schema:user=1:1 limitation in SQL-92 ?
> > Though both SQL-86 and SQL-89 had the limitation
> > SQL-92 removed it AFAIK.
> 
> As I said in another posting a user does not need to exist
> for each schema. The dba can create objects under any 
> schema name.
>

Sorry for my poor understanding.
What I meant was that SQL92 allows the following.

	schema		owner
	---------------------------
	schema1	user1
	schema2	user1
	schema3	user2
	schema4	user3
	schema5	user3
	schema6	user3

Is my understaning same as yours ?

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp 

Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:21:57 +0900
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
RE: AW: Big 7.1 open items