On Wednesday, March 18, 2015, WadeDare4703 <
wadedare4703@comcast.net> wrote:
I don't understand. What is wrong with having a schema which holds no data? Schemas are cheap.
From: "Tim Uckun" <
timuckun@gmail.com>
To: "pgsql-general" <
pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 6:56:55 PM
Subject: [GENERAL] Name spacing functions and stored procedures
What do you guys do to namespace your functions so that they are not jumbled in with the system functions and also somewhat hierarchically organized.
Obviously it's possible to create schemas for different namespaces but that can lead to a lot of schemas which hold no data. The other way is to simply name your functions like _lib_etl_csv_import_weird_data_format but that's not too much fun either.
Just curious how other people deal with the issue.
Create an extension?
Barring that a dedicated schema without user data has desirable properties whether you manage it manually or via an extension. The former ways allows you to write a migration script using drop schema and install everything from scratch. While not useable in all cases it can be done.
I do wish schemas had some additional properties, like being able to readily specify (if not enforce) private versus public functions, for visibility during schema browsing, or creating a hierarchy which too would be visible in browsing. This is what I think you are wishing for as well. Something like Java packages.
I think you can do the naming but tooling support is non-existent and, if it's not readily provided in core and used by psql or pgadmin it's unlikely other tools would want to write their own.
David J.
