On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 12:17 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > > So if we do it this way, then we should pick a new name, like "package". > > That was my first reaction as well, when I looked at this a few years > ago, but I've since backed away from that position. You're certainly > correct that it's awkward to have a single kind of object that behaves > in two radically different ways, but it's also pretty awkward to have > the same "stuff" installed as one of two completely different types of > objects depending on who installed it and how.
I think awkwardness is most visible in the resulting documentation and error messages. At the moment, I'm having a difficult time imagining how we explain how this works to users (or, when they make a mistake or don't get the results they expect, explain to them what they did wrong and how to fix it). Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers