Re: Package support for Postgres
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Package support for Postgres |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.30.0110141401480.849-100000@peter.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Package support for Postgres (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Package support for Postgres
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes: > This seems like it will overlap and possibly conflict with the decisions > you've made for packages. It also seems possible that a package *is* > a schema, if schemas are defined that way --- does a package bring > anything more to the table? I have been pondering a little about something I called "package", completely independent of anything previously implemented. What I would like to get out of a package is the same thing I get out of package systems on operating systems, namely that I can remove all the things that belong to the package with one command. Typical packages on PostgreSQL could be the PgAccess admin tables or the ODBC catalog extensions. One might think that this could also be done with schemas. I'm thinking using schemas for this would be analogous to installing one package per directory. Now since we don't have to deal with command search paths or file system mount points there might be nothing wrong with that. Packages typically also have post-install/uninstall code, as does this proposed implementation, so that would have to be fit in somewhere. This is basically where my thinking has stopped... ;-) Now I'm also confused as to what this package system really represents: Is it a namespace mechanisms -- but Oracle does have schemas; or is it a package manager like I had in mind -- for that it does too many things that don't belong there; or is it a mechanism to set up global variables -- that already exists and doesn't need "packages". -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: