From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: cannot move relocatable extension out of pg_catalog schema |
Date: | 2013-02-04 09:13:45 |
Message-ID: | 510F7BC9.1080603@krosing.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/04/2013 02:16 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>> I wonder whether it'd not be a better idea to forbid specifying
>>> pg_catalog as the target schema for relocatable extensions.
>> But that would be important, I think.
> I understand the temptation to forbid pg_catalog as the target schema
> for relocatable extensions, or indeed for object creation in general.
> The fact that you can't, for example, go back and drop the objects
> later is a real downer. On the other hand, from a user perspective,
> it's really tempting to want to create certain extensions (adminpack,
> for example) in such a way that they appear to be "part of the system"
> rather than something that lives in a user schema. Had we some other
> solution to that problem (a second schema that behaves like pg_catalog
> but is empty by default and allows drops?) we might alleviate the need
> to put stuff in pg_catalog per se.
+1
Having a standard schema for extensions (say pg_extensions) is
something I have wanted multiple times.
Hannu
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2013-02-04 09:17:18 | Re: sepgsql and materialized views |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-02-04 08:55:20 | Re: proposal: ANSI SQL 2011 syntax for named parameters |