Re: RFC: Query Planner making a distinction between Cross Database and Cross Schema ?
От | Stef |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RFC: Query Planner making a distinction between Cross Database and Cross Schema ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20040212205630.GD2137@survivor.hades обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RFC: Query Planner making a distinction between Cross Database and Cross Schema ? (Stef <stef@chronozon.artofdns.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Ummmm. Postgresql doesn't natively support cross database queries... > I know, but it does schema's, and currently, the same notation is used to specify schema's as 'cross database'. So the planner often reports 'cross-database not allowed' in areas where it should at least report 'cross-schema support is unavailable for this' case in point, the example trigger. i would have expected deliberate schemaname.table during an insert to work, but instead the parser complains about cross-database. this is why i am saying that if the parser could identify schema vs database naming, it would help in clarification of areas where the parser/planner seems to get 'confused' about what the object is (schema vs database) currently: history.table1 <-- schema history2.table1 <-- database whereas what i am saying is: history.table1 <-- schema history2@table1 <-- database readability and consistancy is what i am driving at here, although it would then be possible for the triggers to be able to insert/update into schema's that are specifically named instead of coming back with a 'cross-database not allowed' (when i am trying to do cross-schema :) regards Stef
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: