Re: search_path vs extensions

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions
Date: 2009-06-01 19:04:40
Message-ID: 20090601190440.GG5716@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane escribió:

> An
> alternative was to not have BEGIN/END but instead a GUC variable that
> you can SET to the name of the extension currently being added to.
> (The main advantage of that is that the state isn't hidden, but easily
> checkable via existing commands.)

With the CREATE EXTENSION you could still have a read-only GUC var
"current_extension" or so.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2009-06-01 19:05:33 Re: search_path improvements
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2009-06-01 19:03:43 Re: pg_standby -l might destory the archived file