On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 09:49:13PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > David Fetter wrote: > > On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 06:55:39PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > OK, so it seems we need: > > > > > > o make private objects accessable only to objects in the same > > > schema > > > o Allow current_schema.objname to access current > > > schema objects > > > o session variables > > > o nested schemas? > > > > Well, some kind of nestable namespace for objects, anyhow. > > How would nested namespaces be different from nested schemas? I > thought the two were the same.
I was thinking of nested namespaces in the more limited sense of namespaces for bundles of functions/stored procedures rather than a full-on hierarchy where a table can have a schema which resides inside another schema which resides...unless people really want to have it that way. In a slightly related situation, at least in my mind, it seems like for full-on ORDBMS functionality, it should be possible to have a column of type schema or setof record, &c., and be able to take these things apart at each row. Cheers, D -- David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster