Message-ID: <3C5887E8.CE7E569F@tpf.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:55:20 +0900
From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org>
CC: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
References: 
 <Pine.NEB.4.33.0201301207540.26920-100000@vespasia.home-net.internetconnect.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bill Studenmund wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> 
> > Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > 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 ?
> 
> How is our path not an extention of SQL-path? Or at least how is the path
> I've been pushing not an SQL-path?

IMHO _tables_like objects must be guarded from such
a search mechanism fundamentally. I don't object to
the use of our *path* but it should be distinguished
from SQL-path.

For example the PATH environment variable is used
only to search executables not files. Is it
preferable for *rm a_file* to search all the directory
in the PATH ? If the purpose is different the different
*path* is needed of cource. 

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue