| From: | "Nikolay Samokhvalov" <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Modifying and solidifying contrib |
| Date: | 2007-02-07 17:10:37 |
| Message-ID: | e431ff4c0702070910k1c537078x34ed33cef8408f21@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/7/07, Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I still think that separate namespaces for extensions is a good idea
> while adjusting search_path is not. I've explained my POV in details
> several messages ago in this thread...
>
> Separation of extensions with fully specified names
> "schemaname.functionname(...)" is good improvement (for simplification
> and clarity) and while adjusting search_path should be DBA/DBD's
> decision.
Oh, I've just recalled the problem that could arise in this scenario...
We cannot use schema name as prefix for operator calling
("tsearch2.ts_debug(...)" works, while "... tsearch2.@@ ..." doesn't).
This is one specific issue, maybe it's worth to resolve it? Or it's
impossible for some reasons...
--
Best regards,
Nikolay
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-02-07 17:24:08 | Re: Modifying and solidifying contrib |
| Previous Message | Nikolay Samokhvalov | 2007-02-07 17:03:55 | Re: Modifying and solidifying contrib |