On 18-4-2015 15:03, Dimitry Sibiryakov sd@...
[Firebird-general] wrote:

> 18.04.2015 13:50, Mark Rotteveel mark@... [Firebird-general] wrote:
>> Not really, the fact that a schema is owned by a user, does not mean
>> that schema and user are an equivalence. There can be more than one
>> schema owned by a user.
>
> Right, but lets talk about table ownership only for now.
> If, per standard, table is not owned by user but schema, then our
> RDB$RELATION.RDB$OWNER should, actually, contain name of schema that the table belongs to,
> right?

If you look purely at the standard: yes, however the big question is:
should you abandon the way ownership currently works in Firebird?

Mark
--
Mark Rotteveel