Re: Oracle Style packages on postgres
От | Jim C. Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Oracle Style packages on postgres |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20050511205940.GW31103@decibel.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Oracle Style packages on postgres (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Oracle Style packages on postgres
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 04:49:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > How is a catalog different from a schema? > > In the spec there's a hard-wired difference: catalogs contain schemas, > schemas don't contain other schemas. The idea at hand here is to make > our namespaces serve both purposes. (I knew there was a good reason > not to use the word "schema" for namespaces ;-)) The spec behavior > would be met by using exactly two levels of namespace, but there > wouldn't be anything stopping people from using more, except that their > queries wouldn't look like spec-compatible queries. So is the *only* difference in which contains the other? It sounds like they just use a different name to enforce that there's only 2 levels. > Besides, I can't wait to hear the moans from the newsysviews crew when > the implications of this sink in ;-) ;-) Oh no, not recursive function calls! :P Actually, for the performance we're trying to obtain on the more important views (ie tables, indexes), it might become an issue. It would probably force us to C functions which we've thus-far avoided. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel@decibel.org Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: