Gunnar Rønning <gunnar@polygnosis.com> writes:
> Hmm. But if we had schema support can't we just package those procedures
> into a schema with a given name ? Maybe my stored procedures needs some other
> resources as well that should not conflict with other packages, like temp
> tables or such. It then seems to me that using schemas can solve everything
> that packages do and more ?
Yeah. I am wondering whether we couldn't support Oracle-style packages
as a thin layer of syntactic sugar on top of schemas. I am concerned
about the prospect that "foo.bar" might mean either "object bar in
schema foo" or "object bar in package foo".
regards, tom lane