Message-ID: <3C59EA75.E117B2FA@tpf.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:08:05 +0900
From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org>
CC: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, 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.4.33.0201310831290.29090-100000@vespasia.home-net.internetconnect.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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