>> 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
What is problem? I can attach table or sequence. What can be problem is
visibility of nesteded objects (if can be different than functions). My
proposal is only concept, and I my first goal is find way for secure storing
session's variables and shared native functions, like my sample. I didn't
think about others objecst and it's maybe error. Or maybe I was wrong in
"package is similar to schema". I wonted say so relation between function
and package is very similar to relation between functions and schema.
Pavel Stehule
_________________________________________________________________
Emotikony a pozadi programu MSN Messenger ozivi vasi konverzaci.
http://messenger.msn.cz/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
