Re: Operators and schemas - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fernando Nasser
Subject Re: Operators and schemas
Date
Msg-id 3CBC6D05.3462F5A7@redhat.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Operators and schemas  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: Operators and schemas  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > I had imagined that pg_dump would emit commands such as this:
> 
> > CREATE SCHEMA foo
> >   CREATE TABLE bar ( ... )
> >   CREATE otherthings
> > ;
> 
> > which is how I read the SQL standard.  Are there plans to implement the
> > CREATE SCHEMA command that way?  I think I recall someone from Toronto
> > mentioning something along these lines.
> 
> We have portions of that now, but I don't think there is any serious
> intent to support *all* Postgres CREATE statements inside CREATE SCHEMA.
> Because there are no semicolons in there, allowing random statements in
> CREATE SCHEMA tends to force promotion of keywords to full-reserved
> status (so you can tell where each sub-statement starts).  My
> inclination is to allow the minimum necessary for SQL spec compliance.
> 
> (Fernando, your thoughts here?)
> 

I agree.   And for Entry level SQL'92 we are done -- only tables, views 
and grants are required.  The multiple schemas per user is already
an intermediate SQL feature -- for intermediate SQL'92 we would still 
need domains and a character set specification.

For SQL'99, we would have to add types, functions and triggers
(only triggers are not part of Core SQL'99, but I would not leave them out).

Regards,
Fernando



-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat - Toronto                       E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Louis-David Mitterrand
Date:
Subject: Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
Next
From: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD"
Date:
Subject: Re: Implicit coercions need to be reined in