From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Ross J. Reedstrom <reedstrm@wallace.ece.rice.edu>
Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Data Migration
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 12:59:31 -0500
Message-ID: <28473.944157571@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19991202094521.A11044@wallace.ece.rice.edu>
"Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@wallace.ece.rice.edu> writes:
> This notation, db.table.field, does seem to be how other DBMSs do
> it. I've been wondering, however, if our parser would have any trouble
> with it, since in an identifier string token1.token2, token1 is no longer
> guaranteed to be a table.
The parser would indeed get confused, since multiple dots is an old and
still-supported PostQUEL notation for some sort of function invocation
(can't say that I fully understand it). I suppose we could rip that out
without drawing too many complaints. However, parser problems would be
the least of the worries in supporting multiple-database access within a
single backend. We're talking about a major project here, and I'm not
seeing value in it proportional to the work required. If you don't want
to have multiple backend connections open in a client, why not refactor
your database layout so that all the stuff you need is in one database?
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-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, reedstrm@wallace.ece.rice.edu
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Data Migration
In-Reply-To: <28473.944157571@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