Re: erroneous restore into pg_catalog schema

On 2013-05-13 13:04:52 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >> It disallowed it only for tables, and not for any other object type.
> >> I found that completely arbitrary. It's perfectly obvious that people
> >> want to be able to create objects in pg_catalog; shall we adopt a rule
> >> that you can put extension there, as long as those extensions don't
> >> happen to contain tables? That is certainly confusing and arbitrary.
> >
> > Why don't we just prohibit deletion/modification for anything below
> > FirstNormalObjectId instead of using the schema as a restriction? Then
> > we can allow creation for tables as well.
>
> We currently do, but that led to problems with $SUBJECT.

But we currently don't allow to drop. Which is confusingly
inconsistent. And allowing object creation withing pg_catalog only from
within extension scripts and not from normal SQL sounds like a *very*
poor workaround giving problems to quite some people upgrading from
earlier releases. Especially from those where we didn't have extensions.

And I don't see why allowing consistent relation creation/removal from
pg_catalog is conflicting with fixing the issue at hand?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

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