Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>
> > BTW I see few references to *catalog*. Would the concept
> > of catalog be introduced together. If so what would be
> > contained in the current database.
>
> My thought is that we will consider catalog == database. As far as
> I can tell, that is a legitimate implementation-defined way of
> interpreting the spec. (It's not clear to me what the value is of
> having more than one level of schema hierarchy; or at least, if you want
> hierarchical namespaces, there's no argument for stopping at depth two.
> But I digress.) To satisfy the spec we must allow a (purely decorative)
> specification of the current database name as the catalog level of a
> qualified name, but that's as far as I want to go. In this round,
> anyway. Cross-database access is not something to tackle for 7.3.

Just a confirmation.
We can't see any catalog.schema.object notation in 7.3,
can we ?

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue