TSQL supports linked servers in which case table identifiers consist of 4 parts - [linked_server].[database].[schema].[table_name]. We have a construct that supports this called full_table_name, but in most places table_name is used instead. The only difference is that the former supports linked servers, while the latter doesn't.
I've received a request to support linked servers recently and I could not think of a good reason why we'd ever "forbid" a linked server identifier. The full_table_name should be a strict superset of what it supports compared to table_name, so this should be fully backwards compatible.
The non-auto-generated grammar changes can be found in the first commit to ease reviews.
TSQL supports linked servers in which case table identifiers consist of 4 parts -
[linked_server].[database].[schema].[table_name]. We have a construct that supports this calledfull_table_name, but in most placestable_nameis used instead. The only difference is that the former supports linked servers, while the latter doesn't.I've received a request to support linked servers recently and I could not think of a good reason why we'd ever "forbid" a linked server identifier. The
full_table_nameshould be a strict superset of what it supports compared totable_name, so this should be fully backwards compatible.The non-auto-generated grammar changes can be found in the first commit to ease reviews.