Re: WG: [HACKERS] Packages: Again - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Craig Ringer
Subject Re: WG: [HACKERS] Packages: Again
Date
Msg-id CAMsr+YEUEbT4VqQutc5R=gGmTu0ADHAXBmvdZq6-LXYfk4KuOg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WG: [HACKERS] Packages: Again  (Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 13 Jan. 2017 19:16, "Thomas Kellerer" <

Which is a bit cumbersome given Oracle's limit on 30 characters for
identifiers - but it still increases maintainability. And one of the
advantages given for packages was the increase in namespace availability
which is much easier with Postgres anyway.

I was wondering where the namespace thing came from. Sure, packagename_funcname I'd cumbersome but it's not exactly hard and we've been doing it in C since forever.

I'd assumed it was an issue in the opposite direction. PG identifiers being too short. But it sounds like instead it's people not realising they can do this.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] BUG: pg_stat_statements query normalization issues withcombined queries
Next
From: Peter Moser
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types