Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not?

From: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not?
Date: 2003-10-22 10:55:55
Message-ID: 200310221155.55659.dev@archonet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wednesday 22 October 2003 06:55, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:
> > > Oh dear. We really need this function-specific schema path that the
> > > SQL standard seems to talk about.
> >
> > What's that? How would it help?
>
> The idea is that you give each function its own schema search path at
> creation time, and that path applies to that function for the rest of its
> life. Then that function would be immune to schema path changes later on.

But surely that would mean I couldn't do:

CREATE VIEW accts_schema.my_users AS
SELECT * FROM all_users WHERE dept='ACCTS';

CREATE VIEW sales_schema.my_users AS
SELECT * FROM all_users WHERE dept='SALES';

CREATE FUNCTION num_dept_users() RETURNS int4 AS '
SELECT count(*) FROM my_users;
' LANGUAGE SQL;

If SELECT num_dept_users() gives a different result to SELECT count(*) FROM
my_users that can't be desirable.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rod Taylor 2003-10-22 12:34:56 Re: integer ceiling in LIMIT and OFFSET
Previous Message Jochen Westland [invigo] 2003-10-22 09:47:02 round() function wrong?