Re: Schemas (Re: AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1)

2000-11-09 Thread Philip Warner
At 17:34 9/11/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >The thing you get from initdb is a "cluster of catalogs", a database is a >"catalog", a schema is something below a catalog. (There is no such >thing as an "environment" as a hierarchy level.) I think that's what SQL99 calls the 'cluster of cat

Schemas (Re: AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1)

2000-11-09 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Philip Warner writes: > I'd be very interested if someone could post the current thinking re: > schemas, catalogs, and environments, because the way I read the SQL99 docs, > the catalog seems to correspond to a single postgres installation, and a > schema seems to correspond to a postgres databas

Re: AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1

2000-11-09 Thread Ross J. Reedstrom
Phil - My take on this can be found at: http://www.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-hackers/2000-03/msg00137.html Peter agrees with me (from my personal archive: the postgresql.org one has holes in it!): http://cooker.ir.rice.edu/postgresql/msg19913.html There was another discussion, a little ear

Re: AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1

2000-11-09 Thread Pete Forman
Philip Warner writes: > Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think most people will equate database > with a schema (ie. the thing in which you define tables). I agree with most of what you say. However I am used to conflating catalog with database. For example, the last product I put together had one re

Re: AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1

2000-11-09 Thread Tom Lane
Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think the hierarchy goes: > Environment->Catalog->Schema > From what I can tell: > 1. the environment contains truly general things like the SQL parser, the > tools for connecting to the DB etc - which I assume also contains the > user-authorizatio

Re: AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1

2000-11-09 Thread Philip Warner
At 10:36 9/11/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >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

Re: AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1

2000-11-09 Thread Tom Lane
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 kee

Re: AW: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1

2000-11-09 Thread Philip Warner
At 08:59 9/11/00 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote: > >> Just seems like we'd be forcing non-standard syntax on >> ourselves when/if >> CREATE DATABASE becomes CREATE SCHEMA; > >I do not think this will be the way. > I know there was a lot of discussion of this a while ago, but was there a con