> No single feature would make me happier than a multilevel name
> space.

Although some other things would make me happier, a multilevel
namespace is high on my list too.

> The question is how to implement one without rewriting the
> database from scratch.
>
> Here is a modest proposal, more or less off the top of my header:

[..snip..]

Just a few thoughts:

- So there is no CREATE/DROP SCHEMA to establish a list of permitted
schema names? Would it make sense to use the Oracle idea of
identifying schema's with users?

- In the future, the longer table names could help in implementing
remote tables.

> It seems too simple. What am I missing?

The two-level naming goes beyond mere relations. It should apply to
all database objects, including sequences, stored proc's, domains,
etc. Or should't it?

How about "myschema.table1" and "table1"? In which contexts would
these two be the same? Is there a default or implied schema?

Paul