From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Derrick Betts" <derrick(at)blueaxis(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Schema Names |
Date: | 2006-07-29 04:48:47 |
Message-ID: | 14368.1154148527@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
"Derrick Betts" <derrick(at)blueaxis(dot)com> writes:
> However, if I create a new schema, it would seem that the only way to =
> access a table within the new schema is to pre-pend the table name with =
> the schema name:
> CREATE SCHEMA new_schema;
> CREATE TABLE new_table (column_name varchar);
> SET search_path TO new_schema;
> SELECT column_name FROM new_table; This returns an error saying =
> there is no such table as new_table.
That's because you created new_table in the public schema. I think you
are confusing
CREATE SCHEMA new_schema;
CREATE TABLE new_table (column_name varchar);
(two independent commands, and the second one creates new_table in whatever
schema is current according to search_path) with
CREATE SCHEMA new_schema
CREATE TABLE new_table (column_name varchar);
which per SQL spec makes new_schema and then creates new_table within
it. That semicolon makes a lot of difference...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kaloyan Iliev | 2006-07-29 17:51:35 | Re: Tables Locks Quetion or Strictlly subsequent numbers |
Previous Message | Derrick Betts | 2006-07-29 04:45:57 | Re: Schema Names |