From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, 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>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: search_path vs extensions |
Date: | 2009-05-28 16:26:38 |
Message-ID: | A250F839-1A87-4BF3-8336-29E3C07613F4@kineticode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On May 28, 2009, at 1:34 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> 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!
I somehow missed Andrew's mail, but I agree that we don't all agree on
that point. I'm fine with having a standard schema for extensions,
just as long as I can tell the installer to actually install it in a
different schema if I want/need to do so.
Best,
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2009-05-28 16:28:15 | Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-05-28 16:21:49 | Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up |