| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Operators and schemas |
| Date: | 2002-04-16 22:33:10 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0204161831000.689-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fernando Nasser writes:
> I agree. And for Entry level SQL'92 we are done -- only tables, views
> and grants are required. The multiple schemas per user is already
> an intermediate SQL feature -- for intermediate SQL'92 we would still
> need domains and a character set specification.
>
> For SQL'99, we would have to add types, functions and triggers
> (only triggers are not part of Core SQL'99, but I would not leave them out).
I can hardly believe that we want to implement this just to be able to
check off a few boxes on the SQL-compliance test. Once you have the
ability to use a fixed list of statements in this context it should be
easy to allow a more or less arbitrary list. Especially if they all start
with the same key word it should be possible to parse this.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2002-04-16 22:38:04 | Re: Operators and schemas |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-16 22:24:49 | Re: Implicit coercions need to be reined in |