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 ?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-01-30 00:32:04|
|Subject: Syscaches should store negative entries, too|
|Previous:||From: Hiroshi Inoue||Date: 2002-01-29 23:48:12|
|Subject: Re: Improving backend launch time by preloading relcache|