Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> writes:
> Why not? What's wrong with either schema.foo.function (==>
> function(schema.foo)) or foo.schema.function (==> schema.function(foo))?
Neither is wrong in isolation, but how do you tell the difference?
More to the point, given input x.y.z, how do you tell which component
is what?
> Tables and functions can't have the same names as schemas,
News to me. Where is that written on stone tablets? Even if that's
considered an acceptable limitation from a purely functional point of
view, I don't like using it to disambiguate input. The error messages
you'll get from incorrect input to an implementation that depends on
that to disambiguate cases will not be very helpful.
> Actually functions do have to be schema local. It's in the spec (don't
> have exactly where with me).
(A) I don't believe that; please cite chapter and verse; (B) even if
SQL92 thinks that's okay, we can't do it that way because of
backwards-compatibility issues.
> My vote would be to make them schema-specific. As Peter pointed out,
> schemas are how you own things,
Sorry, but this line of argument is trying to assume the very point in
dispute.
regards, tom lane
