From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Crash in pgCrypto? |
Date: | 2008-06-17 01:43:37 |
Message-ID: | 11567.1213667017@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> David Fetter wrote:
>> Maybe I'm missing something big, but I don't quite see what
>> constitutes "proper" that doesn't involve the module's having at least
>> one schema to itself.
> ISTM that "uninstall foomodule" will be a whole lot nicer.
Right. We have all the mechanism we need in the form of the dependency
stuff: you just make everything in the module auto-depend on the module
object. People who want to put their modules into private schemas can
do it, but they won't be forced to.
In any case, trying to define a module as a schema doesn't help at all
to solve the hard problem, which is how to get this stuff to play nice
with pg_dump. I think that the agreed-on solution was that pg_dump
should emit some kind of "LOAD MODULE foo" command, and *not* dump any
of the individual objects in the module. We can't have that if we try
to equate modules with schemas instead of making them a new kind of
object.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-17 02:34:06 | Re: Reducing overhead for repeat de-TOASTing |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-06-17 01:12:23 | Re: Crash in pgCrypto? |