David Fetter wrote:
> 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.
Oh, so allow only functions to sit in the sub-namespace? Yea, we could
do that, but it seems sort of limiting. However, I am unclear how we
would do sub-namespaces either.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
