On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Tom Lane wrote: > Bill Studenmund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > For the most part, I think packages and schemas are orthogonal. I'm taking > > a cue from Oracle here. Oracle considers packages to be a schema-specific > > object. > > Nonetheless, it's not clear to me that we need two independent concepts. > Given a name search path that can go through multiple schemas, it seems > to me that you could get all the benefits of a package from a schema.
About the best response to this I can come up with is that in its present implimentation, types and operators are not scoped as package-specific. If you declare a type in a package, that type is usable anywhere; you don't have to say package.type. If we did packages via schemas, as I understand it, you would (and should). We both agree that types and the functions that operate on them should be schema-specific. Thus operators should be schema-specific. If we did packages via schemas, I don't see how we would get at operators in packages. If you create a new integer type, would you really want to have to type "3 packname.< table.attr" to do a comparison? So I guess that's the reason; this package implimentation creates types and operators in the same namespace as built-in types and operators. As I understand schemas, user types (and thus operators) should exist in a schema-specific space. I can see reasons for both, thus I think there is a place for two independent concepts. Take care, Bill ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])