| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: search_path vs extensions |
| Date: | 2009-05-27 23:57:00 |
| Message-ID: | 4A1DD34C.2030907@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
> I think what this discussion is about is trying to gauge just what
> amount of support we could give someone who insisted on dropping each
> extension into a different schema. It's not really related to how
> we track which objects belong to which extension.
Really, they're on their own.
Either we drop everything into a standard pg_extensions schema (which is
then programmatically part of the search path, like pg_catalog is) or we
don't install them to any particular schema and leave it up to the DBA
to work out any search_path issues on their own.
Personally, if we're tracking stuff through special dependancies which
pg_dump will be aware of anyway, I don't see why extension objects
should go into a special schema.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-28 00:18:48 | Re: search_path vs extensions |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-05-27 23:54:31 | Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions |