Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects

From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)netbsd(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
Date: 2002-01-31 01:57:06
Message-ID: 3C58A472.2E90C21C@tpf.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Bill Studenmund wrote:
> >> 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's SQL-path is very clearly stated to be used only for looking up
> routines and user-defined type names.  Extending it to cover tables,
> operators, and so forth makes sense to me,

I have no objection to the point it makes sense to use
such *path*s internally but I think it also has a siginificance
for SQL-path to not look up _tables_like objects. 
I think they are different from the first and we should(need)
not manage the system with one *path*.

BTW I see few references to *catalog*. Would the concept
of catalog be introduced together. If so what would be
contained in the current database.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2002-01-31 02:03:05
Subject: Re: Per-database and per-user GUC settings
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2002-01-31 01:33:43
Subject: Re: A simpler way to configure the source code?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group