Igor, I understand your point, however, I have spent over a week making a function that previously did very little do a lot. Naming a table the same as a schema is a very silly idea.
Unless you care to take the time to provide a full schema, and function that fails for reasonable , practical design I will ignore all further comments. On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Igor Neyman <iney...@perceptron.com> wrote: > > > That is correct. But table old will NOT be converted to new because > > only the schema name is converted. And table "old" WILL exist because it > will also be copied. > > I have tested and it works properly. > > Please do not provide hypothetical examples. Give me an actual working > example that causes the problem. > > This statement: > > SELECT old.field FROM old.old; > > selects column “field” from table “old” which is in schema “old”. > > Your script converts it into: > > SELECT new.field FROM new.old > > which will try to select column “field” from table “old” in schema “new”. > > > > Again: > > SELECT new.field > > means select column “field” from table “new”, which does not exists. > > Not sure, what other example you need. > > Regards, > > Igor Neyman > > -- *Melvin Davidson* I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
