| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dave Held <dave(dot)held(at)arraysg(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Oracle Style packages on postgres |
| Date: | 2005-05-11 21:59:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20050511215944.GE31103@decibel.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 02:41:43PM -0700, elein wrote:
> Adding to the ambiguity is the dot notation used for
> composite columns. Don't forget the other end ignoring
> those required parens.
>
> is foo.bar.zap
> a database.schema.table
> a schema.table.column
> a table.column.column
Wouldn't that be handled by the FROM clause having to identify only
tables and views? Is there anyplace where dot notation actually extends
from database name down to columns? If that's the case, it seems
reasonable to me to require the use of table aliases in cases where
there's ambiguity.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-11 21:59:52 | Re: Server instrumentation for 8.1 |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-05-11 21:56:04 | Re: Oracle Style packages on postgres |