> KEYSPACE is fine. If we want to introduce a standard nomenclature like > DATABASE that’s also fine. Inventing brand new ones is not fine, there’s no > benefit. I'm with Benedict in principle, with Aleksey in practice; I think KEYSPACE and SCHEMA are actually fine enough.
If and when we get to any kind of multi-tenancy, having a more metaphorical abstraction that users are familiar with like these becomes more valuable; it's pretty clear that things in different keyspaces, different databases, or even different schemas could have different access rules, resourcing, etc from one another. While the off-the-cuff logical TABLEGROUP thing is a *literal* statement about what the thing is, it'd be another unique term to us; we have enough things in our system where we've charted our own path. My personal .02 is we don't need to go adding more. :) On Thu, Apr 6, 2023, at 8:54 AM, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > >> … but that should be a different discussion about how we evolve config. > > > I disagree. Nomenclature being difficult can benefit from holistic and > forward thinking. > Sure you can label this off-topic if you like, but I value our discuss > threads being collaborative in an open-mode. Sometimes the best idea is on > the tail end of a sequence of bad and/or unpopular ideas. > > >> >
