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>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
Date: 2002-01-30 00:20:46
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > What I can find in SQL99 is SQL-path.
> > Does *the path*(i.e search path) mean SQL-path ?
> > They don't seem the same to me.
> While we may have not been using the terminology of the spec, I think we
> have been talking about schema paths from SQL99.
> One difference between our discussions and SQL99 I've noticed is that
> we've spoken of having the path find functions (and operators and
> aggregates), types, _and_tables_.

My understanding is the same.
Tom, Peter is it right ?

> SQL99 doesn't have tables in there
> AFAICT, but I think it makes sense.

It seems to make sense but they are different and
our *path* is never an extension of SQL-path.
Where are the difference or the relevance referred
to in this thread ?

Hiroshi Inoue

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-01-30 00:32:04
Subject: Syscaches should store negative entries, too
Previous:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2002-01-29 23:48:12
Subject: Re: Improving backend launch time by preloading relcache

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group