From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
To: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:08:05 +0900
Message-ID: <3C59EA75.E117B2FA@tpf.co.jp> (raw)
References: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0201310831290.29090-100000@vespasia.home-net.internetconnect.net>
Bill Studenmund wrote:
>
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> >
> > I wouldn't complain unless we call the *path*
> > as SQL-path or an extension of SQL-path.
>
> I still don't get this. The path we're talking about is the same thing
> (with the same envirnment name and operational syntax) as SQL-paths,
> except that we use it to find tables too. Why does that make it not an SQL
> path?
I don't think It's always good to follow the standard.
However it's very wrong to change the meaning of words
in the standard. It seems impossible to introduce SQL-path
using our *path*. The *path* is PostgreSQL specific and
it would be configurable for us to be SQL99-compatible
(without SQL-path) or SQL99-imcompatible using the *path*.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: Inoue@tpf.co.jp, wrstuden@netbsd.org, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, peter_e@gmx.net
Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
In-Reply-To: <3C59EA75.E117B2FA@tpf.co.jp>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox