Message-ID: <3C573C5E.F01B48C2@tpf.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:20:46 +0900
From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
References: 
 <Pine.NEB.4.33.0201290939350.24201-100000@vespasia.home-net.internetconnect.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bill Studenmund wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> 
> > What I can find in SQL99 is SQL-path.
> > Does *the path*(i.e search path) mean SQL-path ?
> > They don't seem the same to me.
> 
> While we may have not been using the terminology of the spec, I think we
> have been talking about schema paths from SQL99.
> 
> One difference between our discussions and SQL99 I've noticed is that
> we've spoken of having the path find functions (and operators and
> aggregates), types, _and_tables_.

My understanding is the same.
Tom, Peter is it right ?

> SQL99 doesn't have tables in there
> AFAICT, but I think it makes sense.

It seems to make sense but they are different and
our *path* is never an extension of SQL-path.
Where are the difference or the relevance referred
to in this thread ?

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue