From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Operators and schemas |
Date: | 2002-04-15 19:54:03 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0204151550440.834-100000@peter.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> After some fooling around with gram.y, I have come to the conclusion
> that there's just no way to use a schema-qualified name for an operator
> in an expression. I was hoping we might be able to write something like
> operand1 schema.+ operand2
> but I can't find any way to make this work without tons of shift/reduce
> conflicts. One counterexample suggesting it can't be done is that
> foo.*
> might be either a reference to all the columns of foo, or a qualified
> operator name.
What about foo."*"?
> We can still put operators into namespaces and allow qualified names in
> CREATE/DROP OPERATOR. However, lookup of operators in expressions would
> have to be completely dependent on the search path. That's not real
> cool; among other things, pg_dump couldn't guarantee that dumped
> expressions would be interpreted the same way when reloaded.
We could make some sort of escape syntax, like
op1 myschema.operator(+) op2
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-15 19:56:33 | Re: regression in CVS HEAD |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-04-15 19:51:48 | Re: Operators and schemas |