Dmitry Yemanov wrote:

>"Jim Starkey" <jas@...> wrote:
>
>
>>It seems too simple. What am I missing?
>>
>>
>
>What you've described can be achieved with (1) only - just extend the name
>and allow people to use whatever separator they like.
>
>

OK, I didn't say anything about a default schema. A user can set a
default schema name. Then an unqualified reference is first changed
against the default schema.

>I think that people need to see advantages of the namespaces over just long
>names. For example, an ability to specify a default namespace on a per
>connection basis? Perhaps anything else? Please show us those benefits first
>and then we'll get back to your implementation proposal.
>
>
>
>
>

OK:

set schema fred;
create table foo (yada yada yada) // creates table fred.foo
select * from foo // selects from
table fred.foo
select * from fred.foo // also selects from
table fred.foo
select * from martha.foo // who's martha?



--

Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376