On 2021-Sep-28, Amit Kapila wrote:
> But it is not allowed to create schema or table with the name
> CURRENT_SCHEMA, so not sure if we need to do anything special for it.
Oh? You certainly can.
alvherre=# create schema "CURRENT_SCHEMA";
CREATE SCHEMA
alvherre=# \dn
Listado de esquemas
Nombre | Dueño
----------------+-------------------
CURRENT_SCHEMA | alvherre
public | pg_database_owner
temp | alvherre
(3 filas)
alvherre=# create table "CURRENT_SCHEMA"."CURRENT_SCHEMA" ("bother amit for a
while" int);
CREATE TABLE
alvherre=# \d "CURRENT_SCHEMA".*
Tabla «CURRENT_SCHEMA.CURRENT_SCHEMA»
Columna | Tipo | Ordenamiento | Nulable | Por omisión
-------------------------+---------+--------------+---------+-------------
bother amit for a while | integer | | |
> Now, during post-processing, the PUBLICATIONOBJ_CONTINUATION will be
> distinguished as CURRENT_SCHEMA because both rangeVar and name will be
> NULL. Do you have other ideas to deal with it?
That sounds plausible. There's no need for a name-free object of any other
kind AFAICS, so there should be no conflict. If we ever do find a
conflict, we can add another struct member to disambiguate.
Thanks
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Doing what he did amounts to sticking his fingers under the hood of the
implementation; if he gets his fingers burnt, it's his problem." (Tom Lane)
