| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rodolfo Campero <rodolfo(dot)campero(at)anachronics(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)nosys(dot)es>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Date: | 2014-10-08 00:58:10 |
| Message-ID: | 54348C22.6070702@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/7/14, 1:08 PM, Rodolfo Campero wrote:
> If it were possible to mark a function as "private for its extension" that would be awesome (the opposite would work too, i.e. a way to specify a public API, meaning the rest is private). For big extensions it's not clear which functions can be used directly by users of the extension and which ones are just implementation details.
I would love to have that both for extensions as well as outside of extensions. If you're doing sophisticated things in your database you'll end up wanting private objects, and right now the only "reasonable" way to do that is to throw them in a _blah schema and try to further hide them with permissions games. :(
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-10-08 03:05:39 | Re: pg_dump refactor patch to remove global variables |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-10-08 00:47:44 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |