From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dave Held <dave(dot)held(at)arraysg(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Oracle Style packages on postgres |
Date: | 2005-05-11 04:28:49 |
Message-ID: | 20050511042849.GA27807@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 09:49:13PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 06:55:39PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, so it seems we need:
> > >
> > > o make private objects accessable only to objects in the same
> > > schema
> > > o Allow current_schema.objname to access current
> > > schema objects
> > > o session variables
> > > o nested schemas?
> >
> > Well, some kind of nestable namespace for objects, anyhow.
>
> How would nested namespaces be different from nested schemas? I
> thought the two were the same.
I was thinking of nested namespaces in the more limited sense of
namespaces for bundles of functions/stored procedures rather than a
full-on hierarchy where a table can have a schema which resides inside
another schema which resides...unless people really want to have it
that way.
In a slightly related situation, at least in my mind, it seems like
for full-on ORDBMS functionality, it should be possible to have a
column of type schema or setof record, &c., and be able to take these
things apart at each row.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter david(at)fetter(dot)org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2005-05-11 04:39:48 | Re: Can we get patents? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-11 04:02:34 | Re: [PATCHES] Cleaning up unreferenced table files |