| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: search_path vs extensions |
| Date: | 2009-05-28 19:32:30 |
| Message-ID: | 4A1EE6CE.1010807@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
>> It also seems to me that we're getting seriously sidetracked from the
>> dependency-tracking part of this project which seems to me to be a
>> much deeper and more fundamental issue.
>>
>
> I thought that part was a pretty simple problem, actually. Have an
> object representing the module, make sure each component object in the
> module has an AUTO dependency link to that object. Where's the
> difficulty?
>
>
>
Well, yes. Honestly, I think all this search_path stuff is a red
herring. We are once again in danger of over-designing this instead of
doing the simple thing first (namely, don't worry about the search_path).
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-28 19:33:15 | Re: search_path vs extensions |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-05-28 19:28:40 | Re: plperl error format vs plpgsql error format vs pgTAP |