On 2013-05-13 21:04:06 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * 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.
I don't disagree, but how is that relevant for fixing the issue at hand?
We still need to fix restores that currently target the wrong schema in
a backward compatible manner?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
