Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org>, <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Date: 2002-01-23T06:11:21Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane writes: > > 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; In SQL99, chapter 4 verse 23 it says "An SQL-invoked routine is an element of an SQL-schema and is called a schema-level routine." > (B) even if > SQL92 thinks that's okay, we can't do it that way because of > backwards-compatibility issues. I don't buy that. If all you're looking for is preserving foo.bar <==> bar(foo) for compatibility, then you can simply say that "bar" cannot be schema-qualified in the left form (so it needs to live in the current or the default schema). We currently only have one default schema, so that's backward compatible. I think this syntax is a mistake, so I don't feel compelled to provide more than backwards compatibility. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net