Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
Hiroshi Inoue <inoue@tpf.co.jp>
From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
To: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Date: 2002-01-30T23:55:20Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bill Studenmund wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > > > Bill Studenmund wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > > > SQL99 doesn't have tables in there > > > AFAICT, but I think it makes sense. > > > > It seems to make sense but they are different and > > our *path* is never an extension of SQL-path. > > Where are the difference or the relevance referred > > to in this thread ? > > How is our path not an extention of SQL-path? Or at least how is the path > I've been pushing not an SQL-path? IMHO _tables_like objects must be guarded from such a search mechanism fundamentally. I don't object to the use of our *path* but it should be distinguished from SQL-path. For example the PATH environment variable is used only to search executables not files. Is it preferable for *rm a_file* to search all the directory in the PATH ? If the purpose is different the different *path* is needed of cource. regards, Hiroshi Inoue