Hey there everyone.
Sorry for what seems to be a rather strange
thought but, could we change the seperator used to
distinguish 'cross-database' vs 'cross-schema' ?
For example, i would expect the following
to work:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION test_autohist() RETURNS
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Stef wrote:
U. Postgresql doesn't natively support cross database queries...
I know, but it does schema's, and currently, the same
notation is used to specify schema's as 'cross database'.
So the planner often reports 'cross-database not allowed'
in areas
U. Postgresql doesn't natively support cross database queries...
I know, but it does schema's, and currently, the same
notation is used to specify schema's as 'cross database'.
So the planner often reports 'cross-database not allowed'
in areas where it should at least report
case in point, the example trigger. i would have expected
deliberate schemaname.table during an insert to work, but
instead the parser complains about cross-database.
I would think just changing the error message to no schema by the name of
suchandsuch found would make it pretty clear.
Stef [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example, i would expect the following
to work:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION test_autohist() RETURNS trigger
AS 'BEGIN
INSERT INTO history.test2 VALUES
(new.field1,history.test_hist.nextval(), new.field2, new.field3,
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Stef wrote:
case in point, the example trigger. i would have expected
deliberate schemaname.table during an insert to work, but
instead the parser complains about cross-database.
I would think just changing the error message to no schema by the name of
scott.marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmmm. I would think the first step would be to simply change the cross-db
queries aren't supported to one of schema either does not exist or is not
in the search path.
AFAICT the issue is that Stef thought it was complaining about a
different name
