Hello.
Not sure this is the right time to post the subject, but since I was already
writing a letter when someone mentioned schemas in fb-devel...

Our parser treats "schema" as synonym for "database" for historical reasons.
Not having read the standard regarding schemas but some examples in the net,
I have a rough idea:

- a db is divided into schemas
- there's a default, implicit schema (that may or may not be mentioned
explicitly)
- the catalog (system tables) lives in its own schema (don't know how
relevant it's, but I found it in other products)
- a schema can have security (and new privileges are needed regarding the
right to execute DDL, anyway)
- a schema can change its owner
- objects can be moved between schemas (what a mess)
- relationships should work between objects in different schemas
- dropping a schema gets rid of all objects in it (but cannot be done if
another schema references some object there, of course)
- a schema is a logical partition and has nothing to do with object
placement techniques like "tablespaces"

Now, who sees schemas as an urgent need and why?

C.
---
Claudio Valderrama C. - www.cvalde.net
Consultant, SW developer.