Re: Dumping an Extension's Script

On 2012-12-05 20:15:42 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 05.12.2012 20:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> >Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
> >>And whether extension control files (or the same information stored in a
> >>table or wherever) should be per-database or per cluster - that's *yet*
> >>another separate issue. You could argue for either behavior.
> >
> >I think anyone arguing for the former is confusing an installed
> >extension with a not-installed one.

Not sure whether it would be the best design, but having something like
UPLOAD EXTENSION which can only exist in the installed form would be
enough for nearly all the use-cases I experienced.

> Maybe it would help if we adopted
> >different terminologies. Perhaps call the control+sql files a "template",
> >while using "extension" for the installed entity?
>
> +1 on the naming.

+1 on the idea of naming them separately, I am not happy with template,
but then I don't have a better suggestion.

> You could still argue that templates should be per-database. It would make
> life easier for someone who is database owner but not superuser, for
> example, allowing you to install an extension that only affects your own
> database (assuming we set up the permissions so that that's possible, of
> course).

+1. We could even have two variants, UPLOAD [GLOBAL]
EXTENSION/TEMPLATE. ISTM that we would need some kind of search path
anyway so adding that separation seems to be a minimal amount of
additional effort.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services