On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> writes:
> > > For the most part, I think packages and schemas are orthogonal. I'm taking
> > > a cue from Oracle here. Oracle considers packages to be a schema-specific
> > > object.
> >
> > Nonetheless, it's not clear to me that we need two independent concepts.
> > Given a name search path that can go through multiple schemas, it seems
> > to me that you could get all the benefits of a package from a schema.
I've been thinking about this. I've changed my mind. Well, I've come to
realize that you can have multiple schemas in one db, so that multiple
schema support != one db reaching into another.
I still think that schemas and packages are different, but I now think
they are interrelated. And that it shouldn't be too hard to leverage the
package work into schema support. Still a lot of work, but the package
work has shown how to go from one to two in a number of ways. :-)
First off, do you (Tom) have a spec for schema support? I think that would
definitly help things.
Second, can you help me with gram.y? I'm trying to get gram.y to deal with
figuring out if you've typed in packagename.function name, rather than
relying on the lexer to notice you've typed ${identifier}\.${identifier}
where the first identifier is a package name & send a terminal saying so.
Twelve r/r conflicts. They involve a conflict between ColId and something
else, and focus on not knowing what reduction to take when seeing a '[',
',', or ')'. Thoughts?
Take care,
Bill
