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
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*.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Elaine Lindelef||Date: 2002-02-01 02:20:47|
|Subject: timestamp weirdness|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2002-02-01 00:54:44|
|Subject: Re: Per-database and per-user GUC settings |