On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 09:49:13PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 06:55:39PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, so it seems we need:
> > >
> > > o make private objects accessable only to objects in the same
> > > schema
> > > o Allow current_schema.objname to access current
> > > schema objects
> > > o session variables
> > > o nested schemas?
> >
> > Well, some kind of nestable namespace for objects, anyhow.
>
> How would nested namespaces be different from nested schemas? I
> thought the two were the same.
I was thinking of nested namespaces in the more limited sense of
namespaces for bundles of functions/stored procedures rather than a
full-on hierarchy where a table can have a schema which resides inside
another schema which resides...unless people really want to have it
that way.
In a slightly related situation, at least in my mind, it seems like
for full-on ORDBMS functionality, it should be possible to have a
column of type schema or setof record, &c., and be able to take these
things apart at each row.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
