| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gunnar Rønning <gunnar(at)polygnosis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)netbsd(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: schema support, was Package support for Postgres |
| Date: | 2001-10-19 14:47:46 |
| Message-ID: | 12665.1003502866@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gunnar =?iso-8859-1?q?R=F8nning?= <gunnar(at)polygnosis(dot)com> writes:
> Hmm. But if we had schema support can't we just package those procedures
> into a schema with a given name ? Maybe my stored procedures needs some other
> resources as well that should not conflict with other packages, like temp
> tables or such. It then seems to me that using schemas can solve everything
> that packages do and more ?
Yeah. I am wondering whether we couldn't support Oracle-style packages
as a thin layer of syntactic sugar on top of schemas. I am concerned
about the prospect that "foo.bar" might mean either "object bar in
schema foo" or "object bar in package foo".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gunnar Rønning | 2001-10-19 14:54:18 | Re: schema support, was Package support for Postgres |
| Previous Message | David Eduardo Gomez Noguera | 2001-10-19 14:45:37 | Re: Fw: Re: Is there no "DESCRIBE <TABLE>;" on PGSQL? help!!! |