| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| 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>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
| Date: | 2002-02-01 01:08:05 |
| Message-ID: | 3C59EA75.E117B2FA@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bill Studenmund wrote:
>
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> >
> > I wouldn't complain unless we call the *path*
> > as SQL-path or an extension of SQL-path.
>
> I still don't get this. The path we're talking about is the same thing
> (with the same envirnment name and operational syntax) as SQL-paths,
> except that we use it to find tables too. Why does that make it not an SQL
> path?
I don't think It's always good to follow the standard.
However it's very wrong to change the meaning of words
in the standard. It seems impossible to introduce SQL-path
using our *path*. The *path* is PostgreSQL specific and
it would be configurable for us to be SQL99-compatible
(without SQL-path) or SQL99-imcompatible using the *path*.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Elaine Lindelef | 2002-02-01 02:20:47 | timestamp weirdness |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-02-01 00:54:44 | Re: Per-database and per-user GUC settings |