"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

Reply via email to