Message-ID: <3C591E5E.14549DF@tpf.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:37:18 +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>
	<3C58BBB3.58D5F964@tpf.co.jp> <29733.1012448621@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:
> > 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 ?
> 
> Sure.  And that's exactly what it should do, IMHO.
> Otherwise the notion that you can ignore your private
> schema (at the front of the path) if you're not using
> it falls down.  Also, we wouldn't be able to implement
> temp tables via a backend-local schema at the front of
> the path.

I don't think it's useful for tables other than temp
ones and I wouldn't use it other than for temp ones.

When we type 'rm a_file' in a shell environment
does the *rm* command search the PATH in finding
the a_file file ? Even though we need to implement
such a search mechanism we would use another path
different from the executable search PATH. I don't
think our *path* is an extension of SQL-path.

I wouldn't complain unless we call the *path*
as SQL-path or an extension of SQL-path.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue