From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:57:16 -0500
Message-ID: <8533.1011819436@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0201231134290.7050-100000@vespasia.home-net.internetconnect.net>
References: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0201231134290.7050-100000@vespasia.home-net.internetconnect.net>
Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> writes:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> 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?
> ?? Depends on how we do it. As I see it, we have four cases. In the
> x.y.z.p.q, we have:
> 1) No table name, but a function name. It's a function call.
> 2) A table name, but no function name. It's a table reference.
No, you're missing the point. Which of x,y,z,p,q is the name we
are going to test to see if it is a table or function? And which
of these names is a schema name --- if you don't even know that,
it's hard to argue that checking to see if some name is known is
a well-defined operation.
> When you started this thread, you said you were thinking about
> "implementing SQL schemas." Are these "SQL schemas" going to follow the
> spec or not?
If you use only the SQL-defined operations, after setting up any
configuration variables we may invent in the way we will document as
necessary for SQL-compatible behavior, then you will get SQL-compatible
behavior. I do not think that precludes having an underlying
implementation that sees the world differently than SQL does and
supports non-SQL behaviors too. (For that matter, I'm sure there is
text somewhere in the spec that points out that the spec intends to
define user-visible behavior, not implementation.)
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, wrstuden@netbsd.org
Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
In-Reply-To: <8533.1011819436@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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