"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. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly