Bill Studenmund wrote:
>
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> >
> > I wouldn't complain unless we call the *path*
> > as SQL-path or an extension of SQL-path.
>
> I still don't get this. The path we're talking about is the same thing
> (with the same envirnment name and operational syntax) as SQL-paths,
> except that we use it to find tables too. Why does that make it not an SQL
> path?
I don't think It's always good to follow the standard.
However it's very wrong to change the meaning of words
in the standard. It seems impossible to introduce SQL-path
using our *path*. The *path* is PostgreSQL specific and
it would be configurable for us to be SQL99-compatible
(without SQL-path) or SQL99-imcompatible using the *path*.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
