Ivan Pavlukhin created IGNITE-12565:
---
Summary: Extend test coverage [IGNITE-9279] Support custom default
SQL schema name
Key: IGNITE-12565
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12565
Andrew Mashenkov created IGNITE-9279:
Summary: Support custom default SQL schema name.
Key: IGNITE-9279
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9279
Project: Ignite
Issue Type
+1 for public
> On May 29, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> +1 for public
> it make sense when copy-pasting SQL queries from ignite to H2 in order to
> check how sql works.
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn
> wrote:
>
>> If "public" is already in H2, then it mak
+1 for public
it make sense when copy-pasting SQL queries from ignite to H2 in order to
check how sql works.
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn
wrote:
> If "public" is already in H2, then it makes sense to use it.
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Sergey Kozlov
> wrote:
>
> > I
If "public" is already in H2, then it makes sense to use it.
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Sergey Kozlov wrote:
> I vote for "public". I assume we may need "ignite" word for future as
> reserved word for SQL syntax extensions ...
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Taras Ledkov
> wrote:
>
>
I vote for "public". I assume we may need "ignite" word for future as
reserved word for SQL syntax extensions ...
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Taras Ledkov wrote:
> I'm OK with 'public'.
>
> Does the "default schema" mean (for Ignite) that all object are contained
> in the schema is availabl
+1 for public
Kind regards,
Alex.
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Taras Ledkov wrote:
> I'm OK with 'public'.
>
> Does the "default schema" mean (for Ignite) that all object are contained
> in the schema is available without a schema specification?
>
>
>
> On 29.05.2017 16:54, Vladimir Ozerov
I'm OK with 'public'.
Does the "default schema" mean (for Ignite) that all object are
contained in the schema is available without a schema specification?
On 29.05.2017 16:54, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
Folks,
I am going to introduce predefined SQL schema which is always accessible on
all Ignit
+1 for ignite
пн, 29 мая 2017 г. в 17:03, Igor Sapego :
> I like "ignite" as it has lower chance to interfere with anything
> which is already reserved.
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Sergi Vladykin
> wrote:
>
> > PUBLIC is already default schema in H2. You can not
I like "ignite" as it has lower chance to interfere with anything
which is already reserved.
Best Regards,
Igor
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Sergi Vladykin
wrote:
> PUBLIC is already default schema in H2. You can not even drop it. Oracle
> does have PUBLIC schema as well.
>
> Sergi
>
> 2017
PUBLIC is already default schema in H2. You can not even drop it. Oracle
does have PUBLIC schema as well.
Sergi
2017-05-29 16:54 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov :
> Folks,
>
> I am going to introduce predefined SQL schema which is always accessible on
> all Ignite nodes [1]. Now I am thinking on how t
SQL Server uses "dbo", Oracle uses current user name.
I prefer "ignite". It is the only one that makes sense to me of all of the
above.
"public" - as opposed to "private"? What's the point?
Pavel
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Vladimir Ozerov
wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I am going to introduce pred
Folks,
I am going to introduce predefined SQL schema which is always accessible on
all Ignite nodes [1]. Now I am thinking on how to name. Ideas are welcomed.
My 50 cents:
1) "public" - Postgres use this name
2) "mydb" - MySQL use this name
3) "ignite" - to be aligned with our product name
4) "de
13 matches
Mail list logo
