| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)netbsd(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
| Date: | 2002-01-23 23:30:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20020123152711.I22382-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> There is a third behavior which is almost the first one. And it's the one
> I use for function matching in the package diffs I made oh so long ago.
> :-)
>
> You look in the first namespace for all candidates. If one matches, you
> use it. If two or more match, you throw the error we throw now. If none
> match, you move on to the next namespace and repeat the search there.
That's even more strongly towards earlier namespaces than my suggestion.
How do you define match? If you allow coercions, then the
plus(int8, int8) in my schema would be prefered over better (possibly
exact) matches in the system schema which may not be what you want.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2002-01-23 23:39:16 | Re: Theory about XLogFlush startup failures |
| Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2002-01-23 23:22:42 | Re: Savepoints |