|Subject||RE: [Firebird-Architect] Schemas|
|Author||Claudio Valderrama C.|
> -----Original Message-----....
> From: Firebird-Architect@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Firebird-Architect@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Martijn Tonies
> > - the catalog (system tables) lives in its own schemaI found the SQL standard provides "definition_schema" (internal tables,
> (don't know how
> > relevant it's, but I found it in other products)
> Mostly "system" ;-)
available to the system only) and "information_schema" (the available views
that the user can query to get metadata).
> > - a schema can have security (and new privileges are neededBut I think this changes in SQL Server 2005.
> regarding the
> > right to execute DDL, anyway)
> A "user" in the database (not server wide) is automatically a
> "schema" in
> SQL Server. Not sure if this is a requirement or even wanted as such.
says "Schemas are no longer equivalent to database users".
> > Now, who sees schemas as an urgent need and why?Since Oracle uses (or used) shorter names (28 characters), I can see how
> In large databases, having schemas as namespaces can be very useful,
> especially given the maximum of characters that can be used for
> Firebird object names.
important the feature was for Oracle, too.