From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | rmm(at)sqlisor(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Oracle Style packages on postgres |
Date: | 2005-05-09 18:46:33 |
Message-ID: | 20050509184633.GO35026@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 10:05:38AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I've also never much liked Oracle's seperate package_header and package_body
> declaration structure: if the two are intrinsically tied, why not make it one
> declaration? Is syntactical compatibility important enough that we need to
> imitate their design errors?
Actually, there is a notable difference between the two. Replacing the
body of a package has a minimal impact on the database, but replacing
the header requires more work to invalidate cached stuff. I think
there's also a few other side effects.
This isn't to say that this is a good way to handle this, but I believe
it's why Oracle does it.
--
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 | Bruce Momjian | 2005-05-09 18:50:19 | Re: Oracle Style packages on postgres |
Previous Message | Dann Corbit | 2005-05-09 18:41:05 | Re: Can we get patents? |