Re: Open 7.3 items

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Open 7.3 items
Date: 2002-08-14 01:00:10
Message-ID: 200208140100.g7E10AP19829@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > Well, they aren't separate fields so you can't ORDER BY domain. The dot
> > was used so it looks like a schema based on dbname.
>
> Sorry, I know it's a single field and that there is no split()
> function (that I'm aware of), but that seems like such a small and
> easy to fix problem that I personally place a higher value on the more
> standard nomeclature and use of an @ sign. I understand the value of
> . for schemas and whatnot, but isn't a user going to be in their own
> schema to begin with? As for the order by, I've got a list of users
> per "account" (sales account), so doing the order by is on two columns
> and the pg_shadow table is generated periodically from our inhouse
> tables. -sc

I have no personal preference between period and @ or whatever. See if
you can get some other votes for @ because most left @ when the ORDER BY
idea came up from Marc.

As for it being a special character, it really isn't because the code
prepends the database name and a period. It doesn't look to see if
there is a period in the already or anything.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Don Baccus 2002-08-14 01:36:41 Re: OOP real life example (was Re: Why is MySQL more
Previous Message Gavin Sherry 2002-08-14 00:56:44 Re: Temporary Views