Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> There are some nontrivial issues to be thought about here, like under
>> what conditions "CREATE SCHEMA foo" ought to create a top-level schema
>> versus creating a schema under some other schema that we are pretending
>> is the active "catalog". But it seems on first glance like something
>> could be worked out.
> Just go the extra info and call the top level catalogs in the commands
> as well:
Nope, doesn't meet the spec requirements. One thing we can certainly
say is that there would have to be a notion of an "active catalog"
(which could be determined by outside-the-spec means, perhaps a GUC
variable) because "CREATE SCHEMA foo" would have to create foo as a
child of the active catalog.
I'm also fairly unclear on what this implies for search_path searches.
Currently, as soon as you have more than one dotted name, search_path
is ignored ... but should it be used? Maybe "a.b" ought to be sought
as "foo.a.b" for successive values of "foo" from the search path.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
