| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Bill Studenmund" <wrstuden(at)netbsd(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
| Date: | 2002-01-23 09:59:18 |
| Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA42128DA@m0114.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I don't buy that. If all you're looking for is preserving
>
> foo.bar <==> bar(foo)
>
> for compatibility, then you can simply say that "bar" cannot be
> schema-qualified in the left form (so it needs to live in the current or
> the default schema). We currently only have one default schema, so that's
> backward compatible. I think this syntax is a mistake, so I don't feel
> compelled to provide more than backwards compatibility.
This syntax is actually my favorite :-) I use it heavily for calculated
columns. I don't feel it is a mistake.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2002-01-23 10:18:57 | Auditing and Postgres 7.3 |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2002-01-23 09:29:10 | Re: Schemas vs. PostQUEL: resolving qualified identifiers |