Christopher Browne wrote:
> Vis-a-vis the attempt to do nested naming, that is "ns1.ns2.table1",
> there's a pretty good reason NOT to support that, namely that this
> breaks relational handling of tables. PostgreSQL is a *relational*
> database system, hence it's preferable for structures to be
> relational, as opposed to hierarchical, which is what any of the
> suggested nestings are.
I won't argue with whether or not nested naming is a good idea, but I will argue
with your other comment about breaking relational handling.
A relational database is a database in which all data is kept in relation-typed
variables, which SQL calls tables, and you can perform all queries and updates
with just relation-valued expressions and statements.
Organizing the tables into a multi-level namespace, either fixed-depth or
variable-depth, rather than using a flat namespace, does not make the database
any less relational, because the above definition and any others still hold.
The "less relational" argument above is a red herring or distraction. One can
argue against namespace nesting just fine without saying that.
-- Darren Duncan
