| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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> |
| Subject: | Re: search_path vs extensions |
| Date: | 2009-05-28 08:34:11 |
| Message-ID: | 87ljoh1v98.fsf@hi-media-techno.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> "we all agree that a specific pg_extension schema is a good idea, as
>> soon as user is free not to use it at extension install time".
>
> I don't think we all agree on that at all. ;-)
Ooops, my mistake, as few people where taking that as implicit and as a
reasoning basepoint in their mails, I assumed we were past the question
already. Sorry to see that's too quick a conclusion... and thanks for
pointing out the absence of consensus!
Regards,
--
dim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2009-05-28 09:11:20 | Compiler warning cleanup - unitilized const variables, pointer type mismatch |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2009-05-28 08:25:50 | Re: search_path vs extensions |