Tom Lane wrote:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@hotmail.com> 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 bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +