| From: | Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Do FROM items of different schemas conflict? |
| Date: | 2002-03-09 00:57:24 |
| Message-ID: | 3C895DF4.7F09690@redhat.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> writes:
> > The POSTQUEL extension of adding the tables for you (if I understood
> > right) is an aberration (if it is still supported it will ave to be
> > removed).
>
> No it won't. The implicit-RTE extension doesn't come into play until
> after you've failed to find a matching RTE. It cannot break queries
> that are valid according to spec --- it only affects queries that should
> flag an error according to spec.
>
> My question is about what it means to find a matching RTE and when two
> similarly-named RTEs should be rejected as posing a name conflict.
> Implicit RTEs are not relevant to the problem.
>
That was a side question, as I though this could get in the way.
I am glad it doesn't.
The rest I said is still valid and is unrelated to this.
BTW, I believe Oracle got the standard right this time.
What Joe Conway has been posting is exactly what I understood.
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-03-09 03:18:29 | Re: Domain Support -- another round |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-03-09 00:30:15 | Re: Do FROM items of different schemas conflict? |