> Shridhar Daithankar dijo: > > > On 4 Sep 2002 at 3:24, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > OK, the HISTORY file is updated, and 7.3 is branded and ready for beta1. > > > > Some minor stuff, > > In the schema changes description: > > "Schemas allow users to create objects in their own namespace > so two people can have the same table with the same name."
> Shouldn't it read "so two people can have tables with the same name" > ? My point is that the tables are not the same, they just have the > same name. How about this for a wording: "Schemas allow users or applications to have their own namespaces in which to create objects. A typical application of this is to allow creation of tables that _appear_ to have the same name. For instance, if some GNOME applications were using PostgreSQL to store their configuration, a "GNUMERIC" namespace might have a table PREFERENCES to store preferences for that application, while a "POWERSHELL" namespace would allow _that_ application to store configuration in a PREFERENCES table that is quite distinct from the "GNUMERIC" one. The "true" table names may be GNUMERIC.PREFERENCES and POWERSHELL.PREFERENCES, but by using Schemas, applications do not need to be speckled with gratuitious added prefixes of GNUMERIC or POWERSHELL." Note that I'm pointing at "applications" as the primary purpose for this, as opposed to "users." In the long run, are not applications more likely to be the driving force encouraging the use of schemas? -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn@" "enworbbc")) http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/unix.html "The most precisely-explained and voluminously-documented user interface "rule" can and will be shot to pieces with the introduction of a single new priority consideration." -- Michael Peck ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
