From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
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 13:14:42 |
Message-ID: | 200505111314.j4BDEgw03983@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Fetter wrote:
> 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.
Oh, so allow only functions to sit in the sub-namespace? Yea, we could
do that, but it seems sort of limiting. However, I am unclear how we
would do sub-namespaces either.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-05-11 13:19:57 | Re: [PATCHES] Cleaning up unreferenced table files |
Previous Message | Mark Cave-Ayland | 2005-05-11 12:40:08 | Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations |