Re: proposal for PL packages for 8.3.
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: proposal for PL packages for 8.3. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | BAY20-F111C8C9753CB4A6ECC31C0F9540@phx.gbl обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: proposal for PL packages for 8.3. ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: proposal for PL packages for 8.3.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > > > 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. > >Having the relationship be similar is fine... actually implimenting >packages as some special kind of schema sounds like a really bad idea. >IMHO, packages should themselves be first-level objects that reside >under schemas. Of course that raises some interesting questions about >the visibility of the functions inside a package, which is why IIRC the >last time this was brought up one of the ideas was to extend schemas so >that they could contain other schemas. I unlike concept of nested schemats or packages nested in schema. I don't see reason for it. About implementation.. package is more special kind of function for me. But relation between package and function I can create via dot notation in function's name. It's different from nested syntax from PL/SQL or ADA. I can easy separate SQL part and non SQL part. Regards Pavel Stehule _________________________________________________________________ Najdete si svou lasku a nove pratele na Match.com. http://www.msn.cz/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: