| From: | WadeDare4703 <wadedare4703(at)comcast(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Name spacing functions and stored procedures |
| Date: | 2015-03-19 02:06:09 |
| Message-ID: | 1159036921.1843987.1426730769974.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
I don't understand. What is wrong with having a schema which holds no data? Schemas are cheap.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Uckun" <timuckun(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "pgsql-general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 6:56:55 PM
Subject: [GENERAL] Name spacing functions and stored procedures
What do you guys do to namespace your functions so that they are not jumbled in with the system functions and also somewhat hierarchically organized.
Obviously it's possible to create schemas for different namespaces but that can lead to a lot of schemas which hold no data. The other way is to simply name your functions like _lib_etl_csv_import_weird_data_format but that's not too much fun either.
Just curious how other people deal with the issue.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2015-03-19 03:06:28 | Re: Name spacing functions and stored procedures |
| Previous Message | Tim Uckun | 2015-03-19 01:56:55 | Name spacing functions and stored procedures |