Propose to close ISSUE-34 by dropping rr:tableOwner


The problem here is that rr:tableOwner is not standard terminology.

The SQL standard says that there is a "catalog" that has "schemas", and a "schema" then contains the named tables, views, stored procedures and so on. A SQL connection comes with a default catalog and a default schema. Whenever a table, view, stored procedure etc is named in a query, it can either state the catalog and schema explicitly ("catalog.schema.table") or omit them ("schema.table" or just "table"). In the latter case, the default catalog and schema are used. It is common practice among RDBMS implementations (with notable exceptions) that every user gets their own schema, and when connecting to the database, their SQL connection uses that schema as the default. This is where the "table owner" terminology comes from.

PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-34 by dropping rr:tableOwner, and stating that rr:tableName MAY be a schema-qualified name.

So instead of this:

   rr:useLogicalTable [ rr:tableName "DEPT"; rr:tableOwner "SCOTT"; ];

we'd simply write:

   rr:useLogicalTable [ rr:tableName "SCOTT.DEPT" ];

This seems like a nice simplification without loss of functionality.


Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 18:34:27 UTC