KEYSPACE is fine. If we want to introduce
a standard nomenclature like DATABASE that’s also
fine. Inventing brand new ones is not fine, there’s no
benefit.
I'm with Benedict in principle, with
Aleksey in practice; I think KEYSPACE and SCHEMA are
actually fine enough.
If and when we get to any kind of
multi-tenancy, having a more metaphorical abstraction
that users are familiar with like these becomes more
valuable; it's pretty clear that things in different
keyspaces, different databases, or even different
schemas could have different access rules, resourcing,
etc from one another.
While the off-the-cuff logical TABLEGROUP
thing is a literal statement about what the thing
is, it'd be another unique term to us; we have enough
things in our system where we've charted our own path.
My personal .02 is we don't need to go adding more. :)
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023, at 8:54 AM, Mick Semb Wever
wrote:
… but that should be a different discussion
about how we evolve config.
I
disagree. Nomenclature being difficult can
benefit from holistic and forward thinking.
Sure you
can label this off-topic if you like, but I
value our discuss threads being collaborative in
an open-mode. Sometimes the best idea is on the
tail end of a sequence of bad and/or unpopular
ideas.
