| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)netbsd(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
| Date: | 2002-01-30 00:20:46 |
| Message-ID: | 3C573C5E.F01B48C2@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bill Studenmund wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>
> > What I can find in SQL99 is SQL-path.
> > Does *the path*(i.e search path) mean SQL-path ?
> > They don't seem the same to me.
>
> While we may have not been using the terminology of the spec, I think we
> have been talking about schema paths from SQL99.
>
> One difference between our discussions and SQL99 I've noticed is that
> we've spoken of having the path find functions (and operators and
> aggregates), types, _and_tables_.
My understanding is the same.
Tom, Peter is it right ?
> SQL99 doesn't have tables in there
> AFAICT, but I think it makes sense.
It seems to make sense but they are different and
our *path* is never an extension of SQL-path.
Where are the difference or the relevance referred
to in this thread ?
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-30 00:32:04 | Syscaches should store negative entries, too |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-01-29 23:48:12 | Re: Improving backend launch time by preloading relcache |