From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Bob <luckyratfoot(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "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 17:01:51 |
Message-ID: | 20050509170151.GK35026@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-05-09 17:05:38 | Re: Oracle Style packages on postgres |
Previous Message | Louisa Thue - Navarik | 2005-05-09 16:17:22 | unsubscribe |