Re: Operators and schemas
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Operators and schemas |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.30.0204151550440.834-100000@peter.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Operators and schemas (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Operators and schemas
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes: > After some fooling around with gram.y, I have come to the conclusion > that there's just no way to use a schema-qualified name for an operator > in an expression. I was hoping we might be able to write something like > operand1 schema.+ operand2 > but I can't find any way to make this work without tons of shift/reduce > conflicts. One counterexample suggesting it can't be done is that > foo.* > might be either a reference to all the columns of foo, or a qualified > operator name. What about foo."*"? > We can still put operators into namespaces and allow qualified names in > CREATE/DROP OPERATOR. However, lookup of operators in expressions would > have to be completely dependent on the search path. That's not real > cool; among other things, pg_dump couldn't guarantee that dumped > expressions would be interpreted the same way when reloaded. We could make some sort of escape syntax, like op1 myschema.operator(+) op2 -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: