Re: Operators and schemas - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Operators and schemas
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.30.0204161831000.689-100000@peter.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Operators and schemas  (Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com>)
Responses Re: Operators and schemas  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Fernando Nasser writes:

> 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).

I can hardly believe that we want to implement this just to be able to
check off a few boxes on the SQL-compliance test.  Once you have the
ability to use a fixed list of statements in this context it should be
easy to allow a more or less arbitrary list.  Especially if they all start
with the same key word it should be possible to parse this.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Implicit coercions need to be reined in
Next
From: "Dann Corbit"
Date:
Subject: Re: Operators and schemas