Wolfgang Wilhelm wrote > - The more difficult a database change including rewriting of code will > get the less likely you'll find something paying for it. In my case there > is a list of reasons from the customer _not_ to switch from Oracle to > PostgreSQL. Besides more obvious reasons like APEX applications on the > list there are things like "complicated PL/SQL code e.g. ... packages..." > (whatever complicated is). Lots of the other reasons on that list begin to > blur because of the changes of the recent versions or the near future like > parallelisation or working on partitions. > Of course there are some questions about style, maintainability... But > this would be another post.
We are a similar shop: mostly Oracle and increasingly more Postgres. But we essentially stopped (or are in the process of) using packages altogether - /because/ of maintainability. If a package contains more then just a single procedure it's impossible for two devs to work on different procedures because the package body still needs to be a *single* source file (which sometimes means: a single file with 10 or 20 procedures). Wherever we have the chance we started migrating packages into standalone procedures. Which is a bit cumbersome given Oracle's limit on 30 characters for identifiers - but it still increases maintainability. And one of the advantages given for packages was the increase in namespace availability which is much easier with Postgres anyway. Just my 0.02€ -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/Packages-Again-tp5938583p5938892.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers