Re: [HACKERS] Packages: Again
От | Craig Ringer |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Packages: Again |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAMsr+YGyV84yojGBBYuqT2Xouo5wDtGVcEzKmbDr6AVgtaO=jg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Packages: Again ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Packages: Again
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 13 Jan. 2017 00:54, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
On 01/11/2017 04:12 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:Unfortunately we didn't get too far into it because the webinar was about Postgres specifically. That said, I have been doing some followup. Here is some of it:What aspects / features of packages were the key issues?
because packages[1]
o break the dependency chain (no cascading invalidations when you install a new package body -- if you have procedures that call procedures -- compiling one will invalidate your database)
o support encapsulation -- I will be allowed to write MODULAR, easy to understand code -- rather then MONOLITHIC, non-understandable procedures
o increase my namespace measurably. package names have to be unique in a schema, but I can have many procedures across packages with the same name without colliding
o support overloading
o support session variables when you need them
o promote overall good coding techniques, stuff that lets you write code that is modular, understandable, logically grouped together....
So far that's all "that'd be nice, but isn't a technical barrier" stuff.
Package variables for example. When _do_ you _need_ them? For what? (I'm aware of some uses but "when you need them" helps us not at all).
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: