Re: What's the CURRENT schema ?

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Fernando Nasser" <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: What's the CURRENT schema ?
Date: 2002-04-08 17:17:54
Message-ID: EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJIELGHGAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fernando Nasser
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> >
> > > You misunderstood what I've said. You may have how many schemas
> > > you please. But you will have to refer to their objects specifying
> > > the schema name explicitly. The only cases where you can omit the
> > > schema name are (accordingly to the SQL'99 standard):
> >
> > Please tell me where's the description in SQL99 ?
> > I wasn't able to find it unfortunately.
> >
>
> As most things in the SQL standard, you have to collect information
> from several places and add it together.
>
> Look at 4.20, 11.1 and specially at the rules for
> <schema qualified name>.

OK I can see at 4.20.
If a reference to a <table name> does not explicitly contain a <schema
name>,
then a specific <schema name> is implied. The particular <schema name>
associated with such a <table name> depends on the context in which the
<table name> appears and is governed by the rules for <schema qualified
name>.

Unfortunately I can't find what to see at 11.1. Please tell me where to see.

However I can see the following at 5.4 Names and Identifiers
11) If a <schema qualified name> does not contain a <schema name>, then
Case:
a) If the <schema qualified name> is contained in a <schema
definition>,
then the <schema name> that is specified or implicit in the <schema
definition>
is implicit.
b) Otherwise, the <schema name> that is specified or implicit for the
<SQL-client module definition> is implicit.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-04-08 17:20:21 Re: timeout implementation issues
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-04-08 17:09:44 Re: timeout implementation issues