
> I don't buy that.  If all you're looking for is preserving
> 
> foo.bar  <==>  bar(foo)
> 
> for compatibility, then you can simply say that "bar" cannot be
> schema-qualified in the left form (so it needs to live in the current or
> the default schema).  We currently only have one default schema, so that's
> backward compatible.  I think this syntax is a mistake, so I don't feel
> compelled to provide more than backwards compatibility.

This syntax is actually my favorite :-) I use it heavily for calculated
columns. I don't feel it is a mistake.

Andreas

Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:59:18 +0100
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects