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: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)netbsd(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: 2002-02-01 01:08:05
Message-ID: 3C59EA75.E117B2FA@tpf.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bill Studenmund wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> >
> > I wouldn't complain unless we call the *path*
> > as SQL-path or an extension of SQL-path.
> 
> I still don't get this. The path we're talking about is the same thing
> (with the same envirnment name and operational syntax) as SQL-paths,
> except that we use it to find tables too. Why does that make it not an SQL
> path?

I don't think It's always good to follow the standard.
However it's very wrong to change the meaning of words
in the standard. It seems impossible to introduce SQL-path
using our *path*. The *path* is PostgreSQL specific and
it would be configurable for us to be SQL99-compatible
(without SQL-path) or SQL99-imcompatible using the *path*.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Elaine LindelefDate: 2002-02-01 02:20:47
Subject: timestamp weirdness
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2002-02-01 00:54:44
Subject: Re: Per-database and per-user GUC settings

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