Print

Print


No, if the client requests a particular schema and it isn't available, the
client gets a diagnostic.  A surrogate diagnostic is the problem is that the
record can't be provided in that schema and a non-surrogate diagnostic if
the schema was unknown/unsupported.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theo van Veen [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 11:14 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Betr.: Re: multiple schemas
>
>
> How about a client requesting a schema that the server cannot
> provide? I would expect the following behaviour:
>
> request             available (yes/no)        response
> schema a         yes                               schema a
> schema a         no                                default schema
> not specified    not applicable              default schema
>
> Theo
>
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 10-07-02 16:57 >>>
> But (a) is not amenable to explain.  It says that the behavior is
> unpredictable, learn to like it.  I don't.
>
> Ralph
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 10:46 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: multiple schemas
> >
> >
> > "LeVan,Ralph" wrote:
> >
> > > I'm unhappy with the opinion that not specifying a schema
> > might result in
> > > records from multiple schemas being returned.  Servers
> > should be expected to
> > > specify their default schema (through explain) and return
> > all records in
> > > that schema when an explicit schema has not been specified.
> >
> > What are the semantics of omitting the schema name in a
> > request? Is it:
> >
> > (a) give me each record in whatever schema is available (or
> > the best, if there
> > is more than one), or;
> > (b) I don't know what's the default schema but give me all
> > records in that
> > schema; or
> > (c) I know what your default schema is; I'm omitting it
> > because I'm lazy. But I
> > want all the records in that schema.
> >
> > If it's (c) then you're right.  (b) doesn't make sense -- it
> > assumes that the
> > client is prepared for multiple schemas so why limit it to
> > one.  If it's (a)
> > then I dissagree.
> >
> > --Ray
> >
>