Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <pg@rbt.ca> 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.
How is a catalog different from a schema?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
