From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, "pgsql-hackers\(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
Subject: | Re: erroneous restore into pg_catalog schema |
Date: | 2013-05-06 14:37:33 |
Message-ID: | 14601.1367851053@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> it seems like the extensions code should test for and reject an attempt
>> to set a relocatable extension's schema to pg_catalog. Otherwise you'd
>> be likely to get not-too-intelligible errors from the extension script.
> Reading the code now, it seems to me that we lack a more general test
> and error situation to match with the comments.
> else if (control->schema != NULL)
> {
> /*
> * The extension is not relocatable and the author gave us a schema
> * for it. We create the schema here if it does not already exist.
> */
> We should probably error out when entering in that block of code if the
> extension is relocatable at all, right? That would fix the pg_catalog
> case as well as the general one.
Huh? According to the comment, at least, we don't get here for a
relocatable extension. I don't see anything wrong with auto-creating
the target schema for a non-relocatable extension.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | 'Bruce Momjian' | 2013-05-06 14:46:42 | Re: 9.3 Beta1 status report |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2013-05-06 14:19:54 | Re: Commit subject line |