Re: Oracle Style packages on postgres

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: rmm(at)sqlisor(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Oracle Style packages on postgres
Date: 2005-05-09 18:46:33
Message-ID: 20050509184633.GO35026@decibel.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 10:05:38AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I've also never much liked Oracle's seperate package_header and package_body
> declaration structure: if the two are intrinsically tied, why not make it one
> declaration? Is syntactical compatibility important enough that we need to
> imitate their design errors?

Actually, there is a notable difference between the two. Replacing the
body of a package has a minimal impact on the database, but replacing
the header requires more work to invalidate cached stuff. I think
there's also a few other side effects.

This isn't to say that this is a good way to handle this, but I believe
it's why Oracle does it.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-05-09 18:50:19 Re: Oracle Style packages on postgres
Previous Message Dann Corbit 2005-05-09 18:41:05 Re: Can we get patents?