Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:

> > it will definitely not
> > do to look for a table's datatype and get the wrong type.  And I think
> > that functions and operators should be looked for on the same path
> > as datatypes, because a type should be pretty closely associated with
> > the functions/operators for it.  So it seems to me that the apparent
> > flexibility of having more than one path is just a way to shoot yourself
> > in the foot.  Why are you concerned that we keep them separate?
>
> For example, doesn't 'DROP table a_table' drop the
> a_table table in a schema in the *path* if there's
> no a_table table in the current schema ?
>
> If we would never introduce SQL-paths (in the future)
> there would be problem.

??

We're talking about adding them now. Why would we add them twice?

Take care,

Bill