Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > I don't object to use a search path to resolve unqualified
> > function, type etc names. But it is very siginificant for
> > users to be able to be sure what tables they are handling.
>
> I really don't buy this argument; it seems exactly comparable to
> arguing that the notion of current directory in Unix is evil, and
> that users should be forced to specify absolute paths to every
> file that they reference.
>
> There is nothing to stop you from writing qualified names (schema.table)
> if you are concerned about being sure that you get the table you intend.
Probably I can do it in many cases but I couldn't force others
to do it. I don't object if PostgreSQL doesn't allow unqualified
table name other than in public/temporary/catalog schema.
There's no ambiguity and there's no need for the CURRENT schema.
BTW where's the description in SQL standard about the use
of SCHEMA path list to resolve unqualified table name ?
Is it a PostgreSQL's enhancement(extension) ?
As I already mentioned before, SQL-path isn't used to resolve
unqalified table name.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
