On Monday 21 December 2009 5:17:49 pm Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Well, yes, because only the first one is visible. The second one is > >>> masked by the first. > >> > >> But the docs say that ALL objects in the schema path will be shown. > >> So, my point stands, either the docs are wrong, or the behaviour is. > >> I'd think it's the docs. > > > > It says the *visible* objects will be shown. Ones that are masked > > aren't any more visible than if they were in some other schema > > altogether: either way, if you want to reference such an object in > > a SQL statement, you'd have to schema-qualify it. > > Ahh, right, it's about visibility. Hadn't caught that part. I think that is where the biggest misunderstanding lies. The problem is that people new to the database may not fully understand what visible means in this context. I know this tripped me up the first time I encountered the identical name situation. I made the same assumption the OP did, the tables where in the search_path and I had permissions on them so they should be 'visible'. It took some digging around to find the correct answer. I not sure how the best way is to clarify that in the psql documentation. -- Adrian Klaver aklaver@xxxxxxxxxxx -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
