| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jnasby(at)pervasive(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 12:18:42 |
| Message-ID: | 29868.1155039522@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> writes:
> I unlike concept of nested schemats or packages nested in schema. I don't
> see reason for it. About implementation.. package is more special kind of
> function for me. But relation between package and function I can create via
> dot notation in function's name. It's different from nested syntax from
> PL/SQL or ADA. I can easy separate SQL part and non SQL part.
Apparently you're not aware that that syntax is not free for the taking.
The reason people are complaining about this proposal is that currently
foo.bar(...) means function bar in schema foo, and you seem to be
intending to break it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2006-08-08 12:30:46 | Re: proposal for PL packages for 8.3. |
| Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2006-08-08 11:57:36 | Re: ecpg test suite |