Re: search_path vs extensions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: search_path vs extensions
Date
Msg-id 200905291324.52531.peter_e@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: search_path vs extensions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: search_path vs extensions  ("David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thursday 28 May 2009 21:38:29 Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > I don't understand what storing them in different namespaces and then
> > putting them all in your search_path accomplishes. You end up with the
> > same mishmash of things in your namespace.
>
> +1 ... naming conflicts between different extensions are going to be a
> problem for people no matter what.  Sticking them in different schemas
> doesn't really fix anything, it just means that you'll hit the problems
> later instead of sooner.

Yeah, to reiterate what I posted elsewhere, perhaps it'd be a good idea to 
give up on the search path idea altogether and think more in terms of an 
import facility like Python, Java, and sometimes Perl have.

In practice, I find a search path is just a tool to cause you to find the 
wrong stuff at the wrong time, and it continues to be a cause of confusion and 
security issues both in PostgreSQL and in Unix operating systems to this day.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up