Tom Lane wrote: > > "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > However I can see the following at 5.4 Names and Identifiers > > 11) If a <schema qualified name> does not contain a <schema name>, then > > Case: > > a) If the <schema qualified name> is contained in a <schema > > definition>, > > then the <schema name> that is specified or implicit in the <schema > > definition> > > is implicit. > > Yes. Fernando, our existing CREATE SCHEMA command does not get this > right for references from views to tables, does it? It seems to me that > to get compliant behavior, we'll need to temporarily push the new schema > onto the front of the namespace search path while parsing view > definitions inside CREATE SCHEMA. >
Correct. It only takes care of proper setting/checking the schema name for the view (as is done for tables) that are being created. Doing as you suggest would be nice (similar to what we do with the authid). BTW, I think have to properly fill/check the schema when the grant objects are tables/views (I am not sure how functions will be handled). I will send a patch in later today or tomorrow, unless you want to do it differently. I prefer to do in in the parser because I can issue and error if a grant is for something that is not an object in the schema being created. Regards, Fernando -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
