Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > For example, doesn't 'DROP table a_table' drop the
> > a_table table in a schema in the *path* if there's
> > no a_table table in the current schema ?
>
> Sure. And that's exactly what it should do, IMHO.
> Otherwise the notion that you can ignore your private
> schema (at the front of the path) if you're not using
> it falls down. Also, we wouldn't be able to implement
> temp tables via a backend-local schema at the front of
> the path.
I don't think it's useful for tables other than temp
ones and I wouldn't use it other than for temp ones.
When we type 'rm a_file' in a shell environment
does the *rm* command search the PATH in finding
the a_file file ? Even though we need to implement
such a search mechanism we would use another path
different from the executable search PATH. I don't
think our *path* is an extension of SQL-path.
I wouldn't complain unless we call the *path*
as SQL-path or an extension of SQL-path.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
