From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Cc: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:51:00 -0500
Message-ID: <29807.1012449060@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3C58BE48.AD4EE527@tpf.co.jp>
References: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0201290939350.24201-100000@vespasia.home-net.internetconnect.net>
<3C573C5E.F01B48C2@tpf.co.jp>
<27527.1012432386@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<3C58A472.2E90C21C@tpf.co.jp>
<29268.1012444330@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<3C58BE48.AD4EE527@tpf.co.jp>
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> Just a confirmation.
> We can't see any catalog.schema.object notation in 7.3,
> can we ?
No, what I meant was you could write catalog.schema.object --- but for
7.3, the system will only accept it if the catalog name is the same as
the current database. This satisfies the minimum requirements of the
spec, and it leaves notational room to use the catalog name as the cue
for cross-database access, if we ever decide we want to try to do that.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, Inoue@tpf.co.jp, wrstuden@netbsd.org, peter_e@gmx.net
Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
In-Reply-To: <29807.1012449060@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox