"Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Are you saying that the package would effectively *be* a schema from the
>> outside. That is, if I have package "foo" then I can't also have a schema
>> "foo"?
> Yes, because I don't need duplicity in function's names.
What if the package needs some tables associated with it? I think you
need to think harder about the relationship of packages and schemas.
I don't necessarily object to merging the concepts like this, but
the implications look a bit messy at first sight.
regards, tom lane