Re: Nested Schemata, in a Standard-Compliant Way?

On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 9:36 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I don't think it's possible to do it without huge ambiguity
> problems, unless you introduce some separator other than dot, as indeed
> you suggest here.

Heh... the moment I saw you'd replied, I thought, "Uh oh!"... because
I think of you as "the reality guy" here. And, sure enough, you came
with a bucket of cold water. :-)

I haven't explored the matter thoroughly enough to give up all hope in
finding a solution which offers a decent ratio. In the end, though,
it wouldn't surprise me at all if you were right.

Single characters are too dear. Digraphs, maybe. Trigraphs? I know
it's getting ugly, but it still might be a net reduction in ugliness
for some people, which could be ignored by most.

> (The reason why pg_namespace is called
> that and not pg_schema is exactly that I
> thought it might someday include sub-schemas.)

I'd noticed the name; it's encouraging that at least people think it
*would be* a good idea.

--
Ray Brinzer