Re: proposal for PL packages for 8.3. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: proposal for PL packages for 8.3.
Date
Msg-id 29868.1155039522@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: proposal for PL packages for 8.3.  ("Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@hotmail.com>)
Responses Re: proposal for PL packages for 8.3.
Re: proposal for PL packages for 8.3.
List pgsql-hackers
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@hotmail.com> writes:
> I unlike concept of nested schemats or packages nested in schema. I don't 
> see reason for it. About implementation.. package is more special kind of 
> function for me. But relation between package and function I can create  via 
> dot notation in function's name. It's different from nested syntax from 
> PL/SQL or ADA. I can easy separate SQL part and non SQL part.

Apparently you're not aware that that syntax is not free for the taking.
The reason people are complaining about this proposal is that currently
foo.bar(...) means function bar in schema foo, and you seem to be
intending to break it.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Meskes
Date:
Subject: Re: ecpg test suite
Next
From: "Pavel Stehule"
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal for PL packages for 8.3.