PFC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Do the parse tree store fully qualified "schema.table" or > "schema.function" ?
They store OIDs. > I mean, if table T is mentioned in a parse tree which is stored, and > the > table is later dropped and recreated... or a column dropped... what > happens ? Dependencies take care of that --- if you drop the table, the statement goes away too. >> I also wonder whether statements should belong to schemas... > Since they are basically an extremely simple form of a function, why > not ? > (but since part of the goodness on prepared statements is that they are > > stored in a fast hash cache, wouldn't that add too much overhead ?) The lookup overhead would be trivial, I expect, compared to everything else involved in a query. But what you'd have to work out is the interaction between that and ordinary prepared statements, which traditionally haven't had a schema name attached to the statement name. (Come to think of it, if there's a statement FOO and I explicitly do PREPARE FOO, what happens? Should the result depend on whether I've used FOO earlier in the session?) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers