Re: Operators and schemas

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Operators and schemas
Date: 2002-04-16 04:21:37
Message-ID: 9171.1018930897@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> I had imagined that pg_dump would emit commands such as this:

> CREATE SCHEMA foo
> CREATE TABLE bar ( ... )
> CREATE otherthings
> ;

> which is how I read the SQL standard. Are there plans to implement the
> CREATE SCHEMA command that way? I think I recall someone from Toronto
> mentioning something along these lines.

We have portions of that now, but I don't think there is any serious
intent to support *all* Postgres CREATE statements inside CREATE SCHEMA.
Because there are no semicolons in there, allowing random statements in
CREATE SCHEMA tends to force promotion of keywords to full-reserved
status (so you can tell where each sub-statement starts). My
inclination is to allow the minimum necessary for SQL spec compliance.

(Fernando, your thoughts here?)

>> Given the present semantics of
>> search_path, that will imply an implicit search of pg_catalog before
>> foo.

> Interesting ... Is that only temporary? (since you say "present"
> semantics)

Only meant to imply "it hasn't been seriously reviewed, so someone
might have a better idea". At the moment I'm happy with it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-04-16 04:34:02 Re: multibyte support by default
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-04-16 04:20:25 Re: ANSI Compliant Inserts