On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 05:39:09AM +0000, Kuroda, Hayato wrote:
> I seem this patch is enough, but could you explain the reason
> you drop initial proposal more detail?
> I'm not sure why extensions contained by temporary schemas are
> acceptable.
Because there are cases where they actually work. We have some of
these in core.
>> Anything depending on a temporary object will be dropped per
>> dependency links once the session is over.
>
> Extensions locate at pg_temp_* schemas are temporary objects IMO.
> How do you think? Would you implement this functionality in future?
Per the game of dependencies, extensions located in a temporary schema
would get automatically dropped at session end.
--
Michael
