From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
Date: | 2002-01-22 23:27:35 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0201221824360.686-100000@peter.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> No, it doesn't work the same as today, because in that implementation
> both A and B can create the same tablename without complaint. It then
> becomes very unclear which instance other people will get (unless your
> "any" placeholder somehow implies a search order).
The "search any schema" switch is only intended for use with legacy
databases, where duplicate names don't occur anyway. If someone uses it
with a new schema-using database design, then he kind of ought to know
that the switch probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense. However, to
get reproduceable behaviour anyway we can just define a search order, such
as by schema name.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-22 23:31:08 | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-01-22 23:18:38 | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |