Tom Lane wrote:
Dimitri Fontaine <dfonta...@hi-media.com> writes:
Le 29 mai 09 à 16:11, Andrew Dunstan a écrit :
I think almost all these difficulties could be overcome if we had
some sort of aliasing support, so that arbitrary objects in schema a
could be aliased in schema b. If that were in place, best practice
would undoubtedly be for each module to install in its own schema,
and for the DBA to alias what is appropriate to their usage scenario.
This coupled with Peter's idea of nested namespace seems a killer
feature for me.
What it sounds like to me is an amazingly complicated gadget with
absolutely no precedent of successful use anywhere. We'll spend a year
fooling with the details of this and be no closer to actually solving
the problem at hand, namely getting a simple workable extension
packaging facility.
Well, the part about no precedent is not true. See
<http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/db2luw/v8/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.db2.udb.doc/admin/r0000910.htm>
for example. I didn't dream up the idea out of thin air ;-) (I pretty
much started my computing career over 20 years ago working on DB2).
However, the part about it being complex is true.
And that is why I agree completely that we should not hold up the
extension work waiting for it.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
