Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Presumably this was raised before, but I'd love to see the consensus view, > if it is documented. AFAIR, the discussion trailed off without any specific decisions being made. One of the things that's still very open in my mind is whether we want to keep the existing notion of independent databases within an installation, and if so how that maps onto the SQL-defined concepts. To me, though, the point of independent databases is that they be *independent*, and therefore if we keep them I'd vote for mapping them to the top-level SQL notion (catalog, you said?). Schemas ought to be substructure within a database. regards, tom lane
- AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and ob... Zeugswetter Andreas SB
- Re: AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg_du... Tom Lane
- AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump a... Zeugswetter Andreas SB
- Re: AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about p... Philip Warner
- Re: AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts abo... Tom Lane
- Re: AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts... Philip Warner
- Re: AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy tho... Tom Lane
- Re: AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy tho... Pete Forman
- Re: AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy tho... Ross J. Reedstrom
- Schemas (Re: AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy tho... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: Schemas (Re: AW: [HACKERS] Unh... Philip Warner
- AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump a... Zeugswetter Andreas SB
- AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump a... Zeugswetter Andreas SB