Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0V3pTl51655 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:51:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0V3p0f29810; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:51:00 -0500 (EST) To: Hiroshi Inoue cc: Bill Studenmund , Peter Eisentraut , PostgreSQL Development Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects In-reply-to: <3C58BE48.AD4EE527@tpf.co.jp> References: <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> Comments: In-reply-to Hiroshi Inoue message dated "Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:47:20 +0900" Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:51:00 -0500 Message-ID: <29807.1012449060@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200201/1368 X-Sequence-Number: 18324 Hiroshi Inoue 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