| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | "Kuroda, Hayato" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "dimitri(at)citusdata(dot)com" <dimitri(at)citusdata(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prevent extension creation in temporary schemas |
| Date: | 2019-02-19 05:09:16 |
| Message-ID: | 30004.1550552956@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 05:39:09AM +0000, Kuroda, Hayato wrote:
>> I'm not sure why extensions contained by temporary schemas are
>> acceptable.
> Because there are cases where they actually work.
More to the point, it doesn't seem that hard to think of cases
where this would be useful. PG extensions are very general
things. If you want to create a whole pile of temporary objects
and do that repeatedly, wrapping them up into an extension is
a nice way to do that, nicer really than anything else we offer.
So I'd be sad if we decided to forbid this.
> Per the game of dependencies, extensions located in a temporary schema
> would get automatically dropped at session end.
Yeah, it doesn't seem like there's actually any missing functionality
there, at least not any that's specific to extensions.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2019-02-19 05:25:44 | Re: 2019-03 CF Summary / Review - Tranche #2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-19 05:05:01 | Re: [Bug Fix] ECPG: could not use set xxx to default statement |