Tim Goodaire wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:24:52AM +0000, Andreas Pflug wrote:
> 
>>Christopher Browne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's just that "completeness sake" dictates mentioning that this isn't
>>>the only scenario where a set can have no tables.  I can't call the
>>>problem "solved" unless all of the scenarios are addressed.
>>
>>A reasonable use-case of empty sets is replication of ddl scripts. One 
>>might like a set dedicated to ddl scripts only.
> 
> 
> You don't replicate ddl scripts. You replicate tables and sequences
> only. A ddl script is applied to a set, but if that set doesn't contain
> anything, I don't know how useful it'd be.

So you don't call it "replication of ddl scripts", but "applying ddl 
scripts to a set". The result is the same, the ddl is replicated...

You might need to target such ddl changes to all nodes in a replication 
topology (your enterprise wide schema), but like your data replicated 
individually between nodes. That's the case I'm talking about.

Regards,
Andreas