| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(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: | 2009-05-28 19:16:21 |
| Message-ID: | 25183.1243538181@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> It also seems to me that we're getting seriously sidetracked from the
> dependency-tracking part of this project which seems to me to be a
> much deeper and more fundamental issue.
I thought that part was a pretty simple problem, actually. Have an
object representing the module, make sure each component object in the
module has an AUTO dependency link to that object. Where's the
difficulty?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2009-05-28 19:20:00 | Re: search_path vs extensions |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-05-28 19:16:06 | Re: proposal: early casting in plpgsql |