Message-ID: <3C58BBB3.58D5F964@tpf.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:36:19 +0900
From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>,
	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>
	<3C573C5E.F01B48C2@tpf.co.jp> <27527.1012432386@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<3C58A472.2E90C21C@tpf.co.jp> <29268.1012444330@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > I have no objection to the point it makes sense to use
> > such *path*s internally but I think it also has a siginificance
> > for SQL-path to not look up _tables_like objects.
> > I think they are different from the first and we should(need)
> > not manage the system with one *path*.
> 
> I'm unconvinced.  We must search for datatypes and tables on the same
> path because tables have associated datatypes;

Isn't the table definition a part of the datatype in
such a case ?

> it will definitely not
> do to look for a table's datatype and get the wrong type.  And I think
> that functions and operators should be looked for on the same path
> as datatypes, because a type should be pretty closely associated with
> the functions/operators for it.  So it seems to me that the apparent
> flexibility of having more than one path is just a way to shoot yourself
> in the foot.  Why are you concerned that we keep them separate?

For example, doesn't 'DROP table a_table' drop the 
a_table table in a schema in the *path* if there's
no a_table table in the current schema ?

If we would never introduce SQL-paths (in the future)
there would be problem.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue