Hi,
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 05:25:27AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> čt 3. 2. 2022 v 3:28 odesílatel Swaha Miller <swaha.miller@gmail.com>
> napsal:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm following up from Jim's POC for adding MODULE to PostgreSQL. [1]
> >
> > My proposal implements modules as schema objects to be stored in a new
> > system catalog pg_module with new syntax for CREATE [OR REPLACE] MODULE,
> > ALTER MODULE, DROP MODULE and for GRANT and REVOKE for privileges on
> > modules and module routines. I am attempting to follow the SQL spec.
> > However, for right now, I'm proposing to support only routines as module
> > contents, with local temporary tables and path specifications as defined
> > in the SQL spec, to be supported in a future submission. We could also
> > include support for variables depending on its status. [2]
>
> I dislike this feature. The modules are partially redundant to schemas and
> to extensions in Postgres, and I am sure, so there is no reason to
> introduce this.
>
> What is the benefit against schemas and extensions?
I agree with Pavel. It seems that it's mainly adding another namespacing layer
between schemas and objects, and it's likely going to create a mess.
That's also going to be problematic if you want to add support for module
variables, as you won't be able to use e.g.
dbname.schemaname.modulename.variablename.fieldname.
Also, my understanding was that the major interest of modules (at least for the
routines part) was the ability to make some of them private to the module, but
it doesn't look like it's doing that, so I also don't see any real benefit
compared to schemas and extensions.
