Re: search_path vs extensions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: search_path vs extensions
Date
Msg-id 17726.1243609934@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: search_path vs extensions  (Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>)
Responses Re: search_path vs extensions  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Re: search_path vs extensions  (Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com> writes:
> Le 29 mai 09 � 16:11, Andrew Dunstan a �crit :
>> I think almost all these difficulties could be overcome if we had  
>> some sort of aliasing support, so that arbitrary objects in schema a  
>> could be aliased in schema b.  If that were in place, best practice  
>> would undoubtedly be for each module to install in its own schema,  
>> and for the DBA to alias what is appropriate to their usage scenario.

> This coupled with Peter's idea of nested namespace seems a killer  
> feature for me.

What it sounds like to me is an amazingly complicated gadget with
absolutely no precedent of successful use anywhere.  We'll spend a year
fooling with the details of this and be no closer to actually solving
the problem at hand, namely getting a simple workable extension
packaging facility.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Aidan Van Dyk
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up
Next
From: "Markus Wanner"
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up