Re: schema support, was Package support for Postgres

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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!!!