* Marko Kreen (markokr@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 10:57:44PM +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> > Other than adminpack, I know of PGQ installing their objects in
> > pg_catalog. They only began doing that when switching to the CREATE
> > EXTENSION facility. And they set relocatable to false.
>
> FYI - PgQ and related modules install no objects into pg_catalog.
>
> I used schema='pg_catalog' because I had trouble getting schema='pgq'
> to work. I wanted 'pgq' schema to live and die with extension,
> and that was only way I got it to work on 9.1.
I've read through this thread and I think you're the only person here
that I actually agree with.. I like the idea of having a schema that
lives & dies with an extension. imv, putting random objects (of ANY
kind) into pg_catalog is a bad idea. Sure, it's convenient because it's
always in your search_path, but that, imv, means we should have a way to
say "these schemas are always in the search_path", not that we should
encourage people to dump crap into pg_catalog.
Thanks,
Stephen
