Re: adminpack and pg_catalog

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
Subject: Re: adminpack and pg_catalog
Date: 2006-11-06 09:02:08
Message-ID: 454EFA10.9070701@postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Neil Conway wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 22:59 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Nothing except initdb should add objects in pg_catalog. AFAICS,
>> adminpack doesn't have any special requirements, so it should behave
>> like all other contrib modules.
>
> Where are we on this? When this topic was last discussed, the three
> alternatives were:
>
> (1) Modify contrib/adminpack to not use the pg_catalog schema,
> per the consensus that contrib/ packages installing objects
> into that schema is broken behavior
>
> (2) Don't modify contrib/adminpack, for the sake of backward
> compatibility
>
> (3) Remove contrib/adminpack from the Postgres distribution
>
> I think the discussion was edging toward #3, but #2 is the only option
> that I'm not happy with. Any other opinions out there?

Looking back over the thread, it appears that only you and Peter
objected to it as it is now. Tom, Andreas and myself were of the opinion
it was fine as it is, and whilst he didn't comment on how it should be
implemented, Simon made the point that supporting admin tools from the
core distribution was important which I take to mean he is against #3.

Regards, Dave.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dr. Ernst Molitor 2006-11-06 10:35:52 Re: WITH SYSID dropped
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2006-11-06 08:25:53 Re: [HACKERS] Bug in WAL backup documentation