Re: search_path vs extensions

* Dimitri Fontaine (dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com) wrote:
> A better way to solve this is to have the database post_search_path (or
> call it search_path_suffix) contain the extensions schemas. Now the
> roles are set up without search_path_suffix, and it's easy to add an
> extension living in its own schema. (we'll have to choose whether
> defining a role specific search_path_suffix overrides the database
> specific one, too).
>
> Having all extensions live in pg_extension schema also solves the
> problem in a much easier way, except for people who care about not
> messing it all within a single schema (fourre-tout is the french for a
> place where you put anything and everything).

I certainly agree with this approach, naming aside (I'd probably rather
have 'system_search_path' that's added on as a suffix, or something
similar).

Thanks,

Stephen