Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Stephan Szabo wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Bill Studenmund wrote:
>
> What I was getting at was that Tom's behavior (or even mine) is more
> similar to the currently described behavior than the suggested one.

I understand. As part of developing the package changes, though, I found
that Oracle used the method I described for finding routines in packages.

From Peter's description, it sounds like Oracle's not following the spec.

> I'd say the same thing for a random math function as well.  For example
> if there was a square(int) that returned $1*$1 and I made a square for my
> complex type, I'd still expect that square(5) is an integer rather than a
> complex using the square(complex).  For example, I'd expect square(5) to
> be a valid length argument to substr.

Yeah, that makes sense.

> > Does SQL'99 say anything about this?
> That I don't know about (don't have a draft around to look at).  I'm not

Do you want pdfs?

> sure that it'd have these problems though unless it's got the same sort of
> coercion system.

I don't think it has the same sort of coercion, but it has some, I'd
expect (as all of the DBs I know of have some sort of coercion :-)

Take care,

Bill