Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: 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 06:11:21
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0201230058150.686-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane writes:

> > Actually functions do have to be schema local. It's in the spec (don't
> > have exactly where with me).
>
> (A) I don't believe that; please cite chapter and verse;

In SQL99, chapter 4 verse 23 it says

"An SQL-invoked routine is an element of an SQL-schema and is called a
schema-level routine."

> (B) even if
> SQL92 thinks that's okay, we can't do it that way because of
> backwards-compatibility issues.

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.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD 2002-01-23 09:11:13 Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-01-23 05:07:57 Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects