MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALdSSPh4jUSDsWu3K58hjO60wnTRR0DuO4CKRcwa8EVuOSfXxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJufxG+mrh2O9RS0gX43gU6sv+CMY847eMjMQpe8t4ou-2ryg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJufxFUdgqDiK9B+VNtnAwZOj=O3NqdLtXO_OrOwE5XPdCpBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALdSSPggNNvcad69dhUceZ_gPuEYnKNNd=WJ_WnP=YDmh=iwmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1898722.1732732780@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CALdSSPhckRXW+KEvdsUmkQ-ErbrP_vPNjGwgXNdpXDb8xnLEbQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2007224.1732773174@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CALdSSPgftbtV=UyeK_XcLit_mKQZr+g8pCxA0kLLxDi0kKwEGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJufxH5TvkQiMOJ9dpDrDbRtyCa-yu+QOmYGt4WGGYVrN+P8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <1075425.1732993688@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1220935.1733009604@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CALdSSPi1tgLgXjSJ7jgQ7L65iRkpuDFL2cJH2QYSz-Hhx3DBew@mail.gmail.com> <1273964.1733032384@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <1273964.1733032384@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2024 17:59:08 +0800
Message-ID: <CACJufxEvYeyXZ9xj8f1A7cuMU4Fh4WF3Dg8HnArLSkwYbqKO3A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CREATE SCHEMA ... CREATE DOMAIN support
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, 
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CACJufxEvYeyXZ9xj8f1A7cuMU4Fh4WF3Dg8HnArLSkwYbqKO3A%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Dec 1, 2024 at 1:53=E2=80=AFPM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com> writes:
> > 3) Why do we delete this in `create_schema.sgml`? Is this untrue? It
> > is about order of definition, not creation, isn't it?
>
> >> -   The SQL standard specifies that the subcommands in <command>CREATE
> >> -   SCHEMA</command> can appear in any order.
>
> In context with the following sentence, what that is really trying
> to say is that the spec requires us to re-order the subcommands
> to eliminate forward references.  After studying the text I cannot
> find any such statement.  Maybe I missed something --- there's a
> lot of text --- but it's sure not to be detected in any obvious
> place like 11.1 <schema definition>.
>

I checked,  you didn't miss anything
11.1  didn't mention "order" at all.

> (I'd be curious to know how other major implementations handle
> this.  Are we the only implementation that ever read the spec
> that way?)
>

quote from  https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/statements/create-s=
chema-transact-sql?view=3Dsql-server-ver16
<<>>
CREATE SCHEMA can create a schema, the tables and views it contains, and GR=
ANT,
REVOKE, or DENY permissions on any securable in a single statement. This
statement must be executed as a separate batch. Objects created by the CREA=
TE
SCHEMA statement are created inside the schema that is being created.

Securables to be created by CREATE SCHEMA can be listed in any order, excep=
t for
views that reference other views. In that case, the referenced view must be
created before the view that references it.

Therefore, a GRANT statement can grant permission on an object before the o=
bject
itself is created, or a CREATE VIEW statement can appear before the CREATE =
TABLE
statements that create the tables referenced by the view. Also, CREATE TABL=
E
statements can declare foreign keys to tables that are defined later in the
CREATE SCHEMA statement.
<<>>