On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Well, yes, because only the first one is visible. The second one is
>>> masked by the first.
>
>> But the docs say that ALL objects in the schema path will be shown.
>> So, my point stands, either the docs are wrong, or the behaviour is.
>> I'd think it's the docs.
>
> It says the *visible* objects will be shown. Ones that are masked
> aren't any more visible than if they were in some other schema
> altogether: either way, if you want to reference such an object in
> a SQL statement, you'd have to schema-qualify it.
Ahh, right, it's about visibility. Hadn't caught that part.
