Tom Lane writes:
> After some fooling around with gram.y, I have come to the conclusion
> that there's just no way to use a schema-qualified name for an operator
> in an expression. I was hoping we might be able to write something like
> operand1 schema.+ operand2
> but I can't find any way to make this work without tons of shift/reduce
> conflicts. One counterexample suggesting it can't be done is that
> foo.*
> might be either a reference to all the columns of foo, or a qualified
> operator name.
What about foo."*"?
> We can still put operators into namespaces and allow qualified names in
> CREATE/DROP OPERATOR. However, lookup of operators in expressions would
> have to be completely dependent on the search path. That's not real
> cool; among other things, pg_dump couldn't guarantee that dumped
> expressions would be interpreted the same way when reloaded.
We could make some sort of escape syntax, like
op1 myschema.operator(+) op2
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
