Hi,
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 10:42:32PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Feb-03, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> > The biggest problem is coexistence of Postgres's SEARCH_PATH object
> > identification, and local and public scopes used in MODULEs or in Oracle's
> > packages.
> >
> > I can imagine MODULES as third level of database unit object grouping with
> > following functionality
> >
> > 1. It should support all database objects like schemas
>
> I proposed a way for modules to coexist with schemas that got no reply,
> https://postgr.es/m/202106021908.ddmebx7qfdld@alvherre.pgsql
Ah, sorry I missed this one.
> I still think that that idea is valuable; it would let us create
> "private" routines, for example, which are good for encapsulation.
> But the way it interacts with schemas means we don't end up with a total
> mess in the namespace resolution rules.
>I argued that modules would
> only have functions, and maybe a few other useful object types, but not
> *all* object types, because we don't need all object types to become
> private. For example, I don't think I would like to have data types or
> casts to be private, so they can only be in a schema and they cannot be
> in a module.
>
> Of course, that idea of modules would also ease porting large DB-based
> applications from other database systems.
>
> What do others think?
This approach seems way better as it indeed fixes the qualification issues with
the patch proposed in this thread.
