| From: | Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)netbsd(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
| Date: | 2002-01-31 16:28:10 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.33.0201310827380.29090-100000@vespasia.home-net.internetconnect.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > it will definitely not
> > do to look for a table's datatype and get the wrong type. And I think
> > that functions and operators should be looked for on the same path
> > as datatypes, because a type should be pretty closely associated with
> > the functions/operators for it. So it seems to me that the apparent
> > flexibility of having more than one path is just a way to shoot yourself
> > in the foot. Why are you concerned that we keep them separate?
>
> For example, doesn't 'DROP table a_table' drop the
> a_table table in a schema in the *path* if there's
> no a_table table in the current schema ?
>
> If we would never introduce SQL-paths (in the future)
> there would be problem.
??
We're talking about adding them now. Why would we add them twice?
Take care,
Bill
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bill Studenmund | 2002-01-31 16:31:03 | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
| Previous Message | Bill Studenmund | 2002-01-31 16:26:40 | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |