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@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
