Re: search_path vs extensions

* Dimitri Fontaine (dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com) wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> > Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> >> "we all agree that a specific pg_extension schema is a good idea, as
> >> soon as user is free not to use it at extension install time".
> >
> > I don't think we all agree on that at all. ;-)
>
> Ooops, my mistake, as few people where taking that as implicit and as a
> reasoning basepoint in their mails, I assumed we were past the question
> already. Sorry to see that's too quick a conclusion... and thanks for
> pointing out the absence of consensus!

I'm not real happy with it either. Sure, we can track module
dependencies seperately, but if we go down this route then we have to
come up with some concept of an extension namespace that different
extension use and prefix their functions/tables/etc with to avoid
overlap with each other. Gee, doesn't that sound familiar. Not to
mention that it's nice to be able to control access to an extension in
one place rather than having to figure out all the pieces of a
particular extension (sure, through the dependencies, but are we really
going to have a "GRANT USAGE ON EXT x TO role1;" ? and what happens if
someone changes the permissions on an individual item afterwards?
etc..).

Almost unrelated, I fail to see the value in continuing to keep the
"magic" part of the search_path (eg: pg_catalog) to ourselves and not
giving our users some ability to manipulate it.

Thanks,

Stephen