> Ummmm. Postgresql doesn't natively support cross database queries...
>
I know, but it does schema's, and currently, the same
notation is used to specify schema's as 'cross database'.
So the planner often reports 'cross-database not allowed'
in areas where it should at least report 'cross-schema
support is unavailable for this'
case in point, the example trigger. i would have expected
deliberate schemaname.table during an insert to work, but
instead the parser complains about cross-database.
this is why i am saying that if the parser could identify
schema vs database naming, it would help in clarification
of areas where the parser/planner seems to get 'confused'
about what the object is (schema vs database)
currently: history.table1 <-- schema history2.table1 <-- database
whereas what i am saying is: history.table1 <-- schema history2@table1 <-- database
readability and consistancy is what i am driving at
here, although it would then be possible for the triggers
to be able to insert/update into schema's that are
specifically named instead of coming back with a
'cross-database not allowed' (when i am trying
to do cross-schema :)
regards
Stef
