On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > SQL99's SQL-path is very clearly stated to be used only for looking up
> > routines and user-defined type names. Extending it to cover tables,
> > operators, and so forth makes sense to me,
>
> I have no objection to the point it makes sense to use
> such *path*s internally but I think it also has a siginificance
> for SQL-path to not look up _tables_like objects.
> I think they are different from the first and we should(need)
> not manage the system with one *path*.
I'm confused. Are you suggesting multiple paths? i.e. a function/type path
and a table one?
I think calling our path an SQL path is fine. Yes, we extend it by using
it for tables too, but it strikes me as still fundamentally an SQL path.
So I don't see why we should not call it that.
Take care,
Bill