Based on this email, I am assuming we don't want to add Package support
but instead will do it with schemas, which Tom is already working on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
