Thanks for the feedback. I am preparing a doc and a PoC, will post soon.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 3:17 AM Wenchen Fan wrote:
> I'm fine with the view definition proposed here, but my major concern is
> how to make sure table/view share the same namespace. According to the SQL
> spec, if there is
I'm fine with the view definition proposed here, but my major concern is
how to make sure table/view share the same namespace. According to the SQL
spec, if there is a view named "a", we can't create a table named "a"
anymore.
We can add documents and ask the implementation to guarantee it, but it
Thanks for the feedback, Ryan! I can share the WIP copy of the SPIP if that
makes sense.
I can't find out a lot about view resolution and validation in SQL Spec
Part1. Anybody with full SQL knowledge may chime in.
Here are my understanding based on online manuals, docs, and other
resources:
-
Thanks for working on this, John!
I'd like to see a more complete write-up of what you're proposing. Without
that, I don't think we can have a productive discussion about this.
For example, I think you're proposing to keep the view columns to ensure
that the same columns are produced by the view
