> I don't buy that. If all you're looking for is preserving
>
> foo.bar <==> bar(foo)
>
> for compatibility, then you can simply say that "bar" cannot be
> schema-qualified in the left form (so it needs to live in the current or
> the default schema). We currently only have one default schema, so that's
> backward compatible. I think this syntax is a mistake, so I don't feel
> compelled to provide more than backwards compatibility.
This syntax is actually my favorite :-) I use it heavily for calculated
columns. I don't feel it is a mistake.
Andreas
