Re: creating extension including dependencies

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:>
>> In short I would give up on the DEFAULT SCHEMA business, and
>> add a new flag in the control file to decide if a given extension
>> passes down the schema name of its child when created in cascade,
>> default being true for the potential issues with search_path not
>> pointing to public.

> Well, so far, it seems like this decision is something where different
> DBAs might have different policies. If you put the flag in the
> control file, you're saying it is the extension developer's decision,
> which may not be best.

I have doubts about that too. But really, why have a flag at all
anywhere? If we are doing a CASCADE, and the referenced extension needs a
schema, the alternatives are either (1) let it have one, or (2) fail.
I am not seeing that (2) is a superior alternative in any circumstances.

We will need to document that the behavior of CASCADE is "install all
needed extensions into the schema you specify", but what's wrong with
that? If the user wants to put them in different schemas, he cannot
use CASCADE in any case.

regards, tom lane