Re: Big 7.1 open items

On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 01:23:57AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> 
> > My opinion
> >    3) database and tablespace are relatively irrelevant.
> >        I assume PostgreSQL's database would correspond 
> >        to the concept of SCHEMA.
> 
> My inclindation is that tablespaces should be installation-wide, but
> I'm not completely sold on it.  In any case I could see wanting a
> permissions mechanism that would only allow some databases to have
> tables in a particular tablespace.
> 
> We do need to think more about how traditional Postgres databases
> fit together with SCHEMA.  Maybe we wouldn't even need multiple
> databases per installation if we had SCHEMA done right.
> 

The important point I think is that tablespaces are about physical
storage/namespace, and SCHEMA are about logical namespace: it would make
sense for tables from multiple schema to live in the same tablespace,
as well as tables from one schema to be stored in multiple tablespaces.

Ross
-- 
Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu> 
NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer
Computer and Information Technology Institute
Rice University, 6100 S. Main St.,  Houston, TX 77005