Re: Oracle Style packages on postgres

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Dave Held <dave(dot)held(at)arraysg(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Oracle Style packages on postgres
Date: 2005-05-11 13:14:42
Message-ID: 200505111314.j4BDEgw03983@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 09:49:13PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > David Fetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 06:55:39PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > >
> > > > OK, so it seems we need:
> > > >
> > > > o make private objects accessable only to objects in the same
> > > > schema
> > > > o Allow current_schema.objname to access current
> > > > schema objects
> > > > o session variables
> > > > o nested schemas?
> > >
> > > Well, some kind of nestable namespace for objects, anyhow.
> >
> > How would nested namespaces be different from nested schemas? I
> > thought the two were the same.
>
> I was thinking of nested namespaces in the more limited sense of
> namespaces for bundles of functions/stored procedures rather than a
> full-on hierarchy where a table can have a schema which resides inside
> another schema which resides...unless people really want to have it
> that way.

Oh, so allow only functions to sit in the sub-namespace? Yea, we could
do that, but it seems sort of limiting. However, I am unclear how we
would do sub-namespaces either.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-05-11 13:19:57 Re: [PATCHES] Cleaning up unreferenced table files
Previous Message Mark Cave-Ayland 2005-05-11 12:40:08 Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations