From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Swaha Miller <swaha(dot)miller(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: support for CREATE MODULE |
Date: | 2022-02-04 06:50:10 |
Message-ID: | 20220204065010.x2aawv564ofwmgva@jrouhaud |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 10:42:32PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Feb-03, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> > The biggest problem is coexistence of Postgres's SEARCH_PATH object
> > identification, and local and public scopes used in MODULEs or in Oracle's
> > packages.
> >
> > I can imagine MODULES as third level of database unit object grouping with
> > following functionality
> >
> > 1. It should support all database objects like schemas
>
> I proposed a way for modules to coexist with schemas that got no reply,
> https://postgr.es/m/202106021908.ddmebx7qfdld@alvherre.pgsql
Ah, sorry I missed this one.
> I still think that that idea is valuable; it would let us create
> "private" routines, for example, which are good for encapsulation.
> But the way it interacts with schemas means we don't end up with a total
> mess in the namespace resolution rules.
>I argued that modules would
> only have functions, and maybe a few other useful object types, but not
> *all* object types, because we don't need all object types to become
> private. For example, I don't think I would like to have data types or
> casts to be private, so they can only be in a schema and they cannot be
> in a module.
>
> Of course, that idea of modules would also ease porting large DB-based
> applications from other database systems.
>
> What do others think?
This approach seems way better as it indeed fixes the qualification issues with
the patch proposed in this thread.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-02-04 07:36:51 | Re: Adding CI to our tree |
Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-02-04 05:54:57 | Re: make MaxBackends available in _PG_init |