Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > Bill Studenmund wrote:
> >> While we may have not been using the terminology of the spec, I think we
> >> have been talking about schema paths from SQL99.
> >>
> >> One difference between our discussions and SQL99 I've noticed is that
> >> we've spoken of having the path find functions (and operators and
> >> aggregates), types, _and_tables_.
>
> > My understanding is the same.
> > Tom, Peter is it right ?
>
> SQL99's SQL-path is very clearly stated to be used only for looking up
> routines and user-defined type names. Extending it to cover tables,
> operators, and so forth makes sense to me,
I have no objection to the point it makes sense to use
such *path*s internally but I think it also has a siginificance
for SQL-path to not look up _tables_like objects.
I think they are different from the first and we should(need)
not manage the system with one *path*.
BTW I see few references to *catalog*. Would the concept
of catalog be introduced together. If so what would be
contained in the current database.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
