On 2021-Sep-27, Amit Kapila wrote: > I am not sure what makes you say that we can't distinguish the above > cases when there is already a separate rule for CURRENT_SCHEMA? I > think you can distinguish by tracking the previous objects as we are > already doing in the patch. But one thing that is not clear to me is > is the reason to introduce a new type PUBLICATIONOBJ_CURRSCHEMA when > we use PUBLICATIONOBJ_REL_IN_SCHEMA and PUBLICATIONOBJ_CONTINUATION to > distinguish all cases of CURRENT_SCHEMA. Alvaro might have something > in mind for this which is not apparent and that might have caused > confusion to you as well?
My issue is what happens if you have a schema that is named CURRENT_SCHEMA. In the normal case where you do ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA "CURRENT_SCHEMA" you would end up with a String containing "CURRENT_SCHEMA", so how do you distinguish that from ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA CURRENT_SCHEMA, which does not refer to the schema named "CURRENT_SCHEMA" but in Vignesh's proposal also uses a String containing "CURRENT_SCHEMA"? Now you could say "but who would be stupid enough to do that??!", but it seems easier to dodge the problem entirely. AFAICS our grammar never uses String "CURRENT_SCHEMA" to represent CURRENT_SCHEMA, but rather some special enum value. -- Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
