From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)netbsd(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
Date: | 2002-01-23 06:11:21 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0201230058150.686-100000@peter.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> > Actually functions do have to be schema local. It's in the spec (don't
> > have exactly where with me).
>
> (A) I don't believe that; please cite chapter and verse;
In SQL99, chapter 4 verse 23 it says
"An SQL-invoked routine is an element of an SQL-schema and is called a
schema-level routine."
> (B) even if
> SQL92 thinks that's okay, we can't do it that way because of
> backwards-compatibility issues.
I don't buy that. If all you're looking for is preserving
foo.bar <==> bar(foo)
for compatibility, then you can simply say that "bar" cannot be
schema-qualified in the left form (so it needs to live in the current or
the default schema). We currently only have one default schema, so that's
backward compatible. I think this syntax is a mistake, so I don't feel
compelled to provide more than backwards compatibility.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2002-01-23 09:11:13 | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-23 05:07:57 | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |