Re: proposal for PL packages for 8.3.

> >> Are you saying that the package would effectively *be* a schema from
>the
> >> outside. That is, if I have package "foo" then I can't also have a
>schema
> >> "foo"?
>
> > Yes, because I don't need duplicity in function's names.
>
>What if the package needs some tables associated with it? I think you
>need to think harder about the relationship of packages and schemas.
>I don't necessarily object to merging the concepts like this, but
>the implications look a bit messy at first sight.
>
> regards, tom lane

What is problem? I can attach table or sequence. What can be problem is
visibility of nesteded objects (if can be different than functions). My
proposal is only concept, and I my first goal is find way for secure storing
session's variables and shared native functions, like my sample. I didn't
think about others objecst and it's maybe error. Or maybe I was wrong in
"package is similar to schema". I wonted say so relation between function
and package is very similar to relation between functions and schema.

Pavel Stehule

_________________________________________________________________
Emotikony a pozadi programu MSN Messenger ozivi vasi konverzaci.
http://messenger.msn.cz/