Message-ID: <3C58BE48.AD4EE527@tpf.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:47:20 +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:
> 
> > BTW I see few references to *catalog*. Would the concept
> > of catalog be introduced together. If so what would be
> > contained in the current database.
> 
> My thought is that we will consider catalog == database.  As far as
> I can tell, that is a legitimate implementation-defined way of
> interpreting the spec.  (It's not clear to me what the value is of
> having more than one level of schema hierarchy; or at least, if you want
> hierarchical namespaces, there's no argument for stopping at depth two.
> But I digress.)  To satisfy the spec we must allow a (purely decorative)
> specification of the current database name as the catalog level of a
> qualified name, but that's as far as I want to go.  In this round,
> anyway.  Cross-database access is not something to tackle for 7.3.

Just a confirmation.
We can't see any catalog.schema.object notation in 7.3,
can we ?

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue