| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jharris(at)tvi(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bob <luckyratfoot(at)gmail(dot)com>, "rmm(at)sqlisor(dot)com" <rmm(at)sqlisor(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Oracle Style packages on postgres |
| Date: | 2005-05-09 17:19:15 |
| Message-ID: | 427F9B93.3000108@tvi.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I agree wholeheartedly and was actually just thinking of this yesterday.
Back when I was working on NEXTGRES I implemented package support into
plpgsql including scopes. While my time is pretty tight right now, I'd
be more than willing to work with whoever the plpgsql master is.
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 10:38:41PM -0500, Bob wrote:
>
>
>>One simple benefit to packages is just organization of related code.
>>
>>
>
>Which, IMHO, is greatly diminished by the lack of
>schema.package.function notation. BTW, the original post referred to
>this as user.package.function, but I believe that technically it's
>actually schema.package.function (Oracle tends to mix schemas and
>users). In any case, schema.package.function is what would make sense in
>PostgreSQL.
>
>Personally, I think the biggest win here would be adding package support
>and syntax to plpgsql. Not only would it make porting from Oracle
>easier, it would also make plpgsql much, much more powerful.
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2005-05-09 17:44:23 | Inline PL/pgSQL |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-05-09 17:05:38 | Re: Oracle Style packages on postgres |