From: | Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)netbsd(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Gunnar Rønning <gunnar(at)polygnosis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: schema support, was Package support for Postgres |
Date: | 2001-10-18 16:57:28 |
Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.33.0110180956260.354-100000@vespasia.home-net.internetconnect.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 19 Oct 2001, Gunnar [iso-8859-1] Rnning wrote:
> * Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> |
> | Yeah. I am wondering whether we couldn't support Oracle-style packages
> | as a thin layer of syntactic sugar on top of schemas. I am concerned
> | about the prospect that "foo.bar" might mean either "object bar in
> | schema foo" or "object bar in package foo".
>
> Agreed, and in Sybase you may declare a procedure in a schema(or
> database which is the Sybase term). If you want it global you declare it
> in the "master" schema.
Oh cool. I knew that Oracle used "standard" for the name of the built-in
package, but I didn't know a name for the built-in schema. "master" sounds
good.
Take care,
Bill
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-10-18 17:40:18 | date/time improvements for 7.2 |
Previous Message | Bill Studenmund | 2001-10-18 16:56:22 | Re: schema support, was Package support for Postgres |