Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0N58Cl11241 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 00:08:12 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0N57vf00651; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 00:07:58 -0500 (EST) To: Bill Studenmund cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Bill Studenmund message dated "Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:10:24 -0800" Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 00:07:57 -0500 Message-ID: <648.1011762477@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200201/1018 X-Sequence-Number: 18006 Bill Studenmund writes: > Why not? What's wrong with either schema.foo.function (==> > function(schema.foo)) or foo.schema.function (==> schema.function(foo))? Neither is wrong in isolation, but how do you tell the difference? More to the point, given input x.y.z, how do you tell which component is what? > Tables and functions can't have the same names as schemas, News to me. Where is that written on stone tablets? Even if that's considered an acceptable limitation from a purely functional point of view, I don't like using it to disambiguate input. The error messages you'll get from incorrect input to an implementation that depends on that to disambiguate cases will not be very helpful. > Actually functions do have to be schema local. It's in the spec (don't > have exactly where with me). (A) I don't believe that; please cite chapter and verse; (B) even if SQL92 thinks that's okay, we can't do it that way because of backwards-compatibility issues. > My vote would be to make them schema-specific. As Peter pointed out, > schemas are how you own things, Sorry, but this line of argument is trying to assume the very point in dispute. regards, tom lane