Closed rtt3r closed 6 years ago
Can you describe the use case here? It adds quite a bit of overhead, adds a required field, and creates a lot of allocations (e.g. strings on each SQL operation) so the additional overhead for a minority use case certainly is a major concern.
I'm not against supporting schemas (if we do it, we should do it on all providers), but the actual implementation would need to be very different, and optional.
I've added this in a cached way that works not only for schemas but table names as well, please check out #111 and it'll be available in the next alpha :)
Add SQL Server table schema support.