Tom Lane wrote: > > Fernando Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> I've been vacillating about whether to choose another name for the > >> public namespace to avoid the need for quotes here. I can't think > >> of another good name :-( > > > For the special schemas, we have pg_catalog, (pg_temp, pg_toast ?), > > so pg_public could do the trick. > > Actually that was my initial choice of name, but I changed my mind > later. The reason is that the dbadmin should be able to restrict or > even delete the public namespace if his usage plans for the database > don't allow any shared objects.
Can't we prevent creation in there by (un)setting permissions? > If we call it pg_public then the system > will think it is a reserved namespace, and we'd have to put in a special > case to allow it to be deleted (not to mention recreated again, should > the DBA change his mind later). If we can disallow creation with permissions, then we could always keep it. There should be a more practical way of making it empty than having to drop each object individually (DROP will drop the contents but refuse to delete the schema itself as it is a pg_ one?). -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
