Tom Lane wrote: > "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> 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.
I like the idea of a package being a schema. I imagine that a package would put its own schema name first in the 'search_path' before referencing an object. I think anything more complex is going to be too hard to use. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
