-----Original Message----- From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 3:33 PM To: Fernando Nasser Cc: Tom Lane; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Operators and schemas
Fernando Nasser writes: > I agree. And for Entry level SQL'92 we are done -- only tables, views > and grants are required. The multiple schemas per user is already > an intermediate SQL feature -- for intermediate SQL'92 we would still > need domains and a character set specification. > > For SQL'99, we would have to add types, functions and triggers > (only triggers are not part of Core SQL'99, but I would not leave them out). I can hardly believe that we want to implement this just to be able to check off a few boxes on the SQL-compliance test. Once you have the ability to use a fixed list of statements in this context it should be easy to allow a more or less arbitrary list. Especially if they all start with the same key word it should be possible to parse this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Items like "schema" are a part of the language for a reason. Being able to create a schema in an area called 'test' and another in an area called 'development' and yet another in an area called 'production' is a key feature for real business usefulness. IMO-YMMV. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
