On 12/1/13, 10:47 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Having a management system for sets of objects is a *great* idea- and
> one which we already have through schemas. What we don't have is any
> kind of versioning system built-in or other metadata about it, nor do we
> have good tooling which leverages such a versioning or similar system.
> Extensions provide some of that metadata around schemas and object
> definitions,
Schemas can't manage objects that are not in schemas, so that won't work.
It would be great if we could take the dependency tracking mechanism in
extensions and expose it separately. I would like to be able to say
START PACKAGE foo -- bad name
bunch of DDL
STOP PACKAGE
use it, later
DROP PACKAGE foo;
This mechanism already exists in extensions, but it's combined with a
bunch of other things. Separating those things (and naming them
separately) might clear a few things up.