From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Modifying and solidifying contrib |
Date: | 2007-01-28 22:14:36 |
Message-ID: | 45BD204C.2090704@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> I don't think "all or nothing" is a good way to do this. 500
> functions in a schema called extensions isn't much more helpful than
> 500 in public. There's a reason namespaces were invented long ago,
> and this is classic use case for same. :)
I disagree, see my post previously about initializing the extensions
schema to not be accessible initially. It would be there, it would be
loaded, but it would take a superuser to grant ability to access functions.
This allows a clean distinction between the modules while allowing their
access on a case by case basis.
>>>>> --enable-extension=earthdistance
>>>> And have to parse for each extension?
>>> I don't see this as a big problem.
>> Well I am not really interesting in this. Someone else is welcome to
>> try that.
>
> It's really not hard, even for a C n00b like me. :)
I didn't say it was hard. I said I wasn't interested :)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2007-01-28 22:19:35 | Re: Modifying and solidifying contrib |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2007-01-28 22:02:04 | Re: Modifying and solidifying contrib |