Re: Can I get some PostgreSQL developer feedback on these five general issues I have with PostgreSQL and its ecosystem?

Sep 24, 2020, 8:13 AM by tshelver(at)gmail(dot)com:

>>
>> On 9/23/20 11:51 AM, >> tutiluren(at)tutanota(dot)com>>  wrote:
>>
> >     Huh? A schema is just a name space, why does it matter how the
> >     extension chooses to define it? I mean you could have number of
> >     permutations of postgis.
> >
> > I'm saying that PostGIS has a bug due to incorrectly constructed
> > internal queries which makes it impossible to properly name the schema
> > where PostGIS is to reside, causing my database to look very ugly when
> > it has to say "postgis" instead of "PostGIS" for PostGIS's schema. And
> > that was an example of how sloppy/bad third-party things always are, and
> > is one reason why I don't like it when I have to rely on "extensions".
>
>
> Ummmm?   I have PostGIS installed in my core app schema, in part because at the time I didn't know what I was doing. Better to have been in  public...
>
> You may also want to look at comparable ANSI (standards based) database products (Oracle for example) when it comes to the use of case in naming conventions.  Different products handle things in different ways.
>
> You may want to google around the issue, for example > https://postgis.net/2017/11/07/tip-move-postgis-schema/> for moving schemas.
>
> You may want to do some research on where PostGIS comes from.  It could never have been developed as a core part of Postgres, so the fact that products like PostGIS are so domain specific. 
> The fact that the Postgesql extension system is so flexible and robust was probably a key factor in the choice it's choice in the development of PostGIS.
>
It's painfully clear that people don't read anymore. I don't know what to say other than: "This has nothing to do with what I said."

> My suggestion is 'live with it'.
>
And my point was that third-party extensions always are sloppy/bad in some way, and what I described was a perfect example of such a thing. It's insulting beyond words to be forced to make an ugly schema called "postgis" just because of a BUG in PostGIS, when all my other schemas are named properly and PostgreSQL has ZERO problems calling it "PostGIS" -- it's PostGIS that has a BUG in it that makes it impossible to use if you name it properly.

> Or, move to a product that suits your use cases / desires better
>
Always the same thing. The slightest criticism, no matter how warranted, always results in: "Fine. Go somewhere else. Use something else." Never: "Oh, right. Sorry, but we always used lowercase ourselves and therefore didn't consider this. In retrospect, it's an embarrassing mistake! We'll fix it in the next release. Thanks for pointing that out."

> , But, good luck finding another open source "free" (or any) product with the functionality, robusiness and performance of PostGIS / Postgresql.
>
I didn't say there is, nor do I think so. It wasn't my point at all...