Re: Package support for Postgres
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Package support for Postgres |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.30.0110182021320.633-100000@peter.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Package support for Postgres (Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Package support for Postgres
Re: Package support for Postgres |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bill Studenmund writes: > Honestly, I do not understand why "global variables" have been such a sore > point for you. My point is that the proposed "package support" introduces two features that are a) independent, and b) already exist, at least in design. Schemas are already planned as a namespace mechanism. Global variables in PLs already exist in some PLs. Others can add it if they like. There aren't any other features introduced by "package support" that I can see or that you have explicitly pointed out. So the two questions I ask myself are: 1. Are package namespaces "better" than schemas? The answer to that is no, because schemas are more standard and more general. 2. Are global variables via packages "better" than the existing setups? My answer to that is again no, because the existing setups respect language conventions, maintain the separation of the backend and the language handlers, and of course they are already there and used. So as a consequence we have to ask ourselves, 3. Do "packages" add anything more to the table than those two elementary features? Please educate us. 4. Would it make sense to provide "packages" alongside the existing mechanisms that accomplish approximately the same thing. That could be debated, in case we agree that they are approximately the same thing. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: