Re: [INTERFACES] Data Migration
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [INTERFACES] Data Migration |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 28473.944157571@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [INTERFACES] Data Migration ("Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@wallace.ece.rice.edu>) |
Список | pgsql-interfaces |
"Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@wallace.ece.rice.edu> writes: > This notation, db.table.field, does seem to be how other DBMSs do > it. I've been wondering, however, if our parser would have any trouble > with it, since in an identifier string token1.token2, token1 is no longer > guaranteed to be a table. The parser would indeed get confused, since multiple dots is an old and still-supported PostQUEL notation for some sort of function invocation (can't say that I fully understand it). I suppose we could rip that out without drawing too many complaints. However, parser problems would be the least of the worries in supporting multiple-database access within a single backend. We're talking about a major project here, and I'm not seeing value in it proportional to the work required. If you don't want to have multiple backend connections open in a client, why not refactor your database layout so that all the stuff you need is in one database? regards, tom lane ************
В списке pgsql-interfaces по дате отправления: