Tom Lane wrote:
> Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com> writes:
>
>> Le 29 mai 09 à 16:11, Andrew Dunstan a écrit :
>>
>>> I think almost all these difficulties could be overcome if we had
>>> some sort of aliasing support, so that arbitrary objects in schema a
>>> could be aliased in schema b. If that were in place, best practice
>>> would undoubtedly be for each module to install in its own schema,
>>> and for the DBA to alias what is appropriate to their usage scenario.
>>>
>
>
>> This coupled with Peter's idea of nested namespace seems a killer
>> feature for me.
>>
>
> What it sounds like to me is an amazingly complicated gadget with
> absolutely no precedent of successful use anywhere. We'll spend a year
> fooling with the details of this and be no closer to actually solving
> the problem at hand, namely getting a simple workable extension
> packaging facility.
>
Well, the part about no precedent is not true. See
<http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/db2luw/v8/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.db2.udb.doc/admin/r0000910.htm>
for example. I didn't dream up the idea out of thin air ;-) (I pretty
much started my computing career over 20 years ago working on DB2).
However, the part about it being complex is true.
And that is why I agree completely that we should not hold up the
extension work waiting for it.
cheers
andrew
