Tom Lane wrote:
> "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.

I like the idea of a package being a schema.  I imagine that a package
would put its own schema name first in the 'search_path' before
referencing an object.  I think anything more complex is going to be too
hard to use.

  Bruce Momjian   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to