Re: Nested Schemata, in a Standard-Compliant Way?
От | Raymond Brinzer |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Nested Schemata, in a Standard-Compliant Way? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CANasJHmEV1fz9066P=gmoBmTKND0+fZKqQ9z9Ys_1fFmtszVeQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Nested Schemata, in a Standard-Compliant Way? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 9:36 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I don't think it's possible to do it without huge ambiguity > problems, unless you introduce some separator other than dot, as indeed > you suggest here. Heh... the moment I saw you'd replied, I thought, "Uh oh!"... because I think of you as "the reality guy" here. And, sure enough, you came with a bucket of cold water. :-) I haven't explored the matter thoroughly enough to give up all hope in finding a solution which offers a decent ratio. In the end, though, it wouldn't surprise me at all if you were right. Single characters are too dear. Digraphs, maybe. Trigraphs? I know it's getting ugly, but it still might be a net reduction in ugliness for some people, which could be ignored by most. > (The reason why pg_namespace is called > that and not pg_schema is exactly that I > thought it might someday include sub-schemas.) I'd noticed the name; it's encouraging that at least people think it *would be* a good idea. -- Ray Brinzer
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: