From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com>, dev(at)archonet(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: proposal for PL packages for 8.3. |
Date: | 2006-08-08 19:01:26 |
Message-ID: | 200608081901.k78J1QO27323@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> Are you saying that the package would effectively *be* a schema from the
> >> outside. That is, if I have package "foo" then I can't also have a schema
> >> "foo"?
>
> > Yes, because I don't need duplicity in function's names.
>
> What if the package needs some tables associated with it? I think you
> need to think harder about the relationship of packages and schemas.
> I don't necessarily object to merging the concepts like this, but
> the implications look a bit messy at first sight.
I like the idea of a package being a schema. I imagine that a package
would put its own schema name first in the 'search_path' before
referencing an object. I think anything more complex is going to be too
hard to use.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-08-08 19:03:59 | pgsql: Add detail on packages: > > A package would be a schema |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-08-08 18:41:48 | Re: 8.2 features status |