Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> BTW, I'm not even 100% convinced that the schema shouldn't be part of
>> the extension's name, if we're going to make it work like this. Is
>> there a reason I shouldn't be able to have both public.myextension
>> and testing.myextension? If we're constraining all the objects owned by
>> the extension to live in a single schema, this seems perfectly feasible.
> Are you proposing that an extension object is schema qualified?
Dunno, I'm just asking the question. If it isn't, why not?
Here's another question: if an extension's objects live (mostly or
entirely) in schema X, what happens if the possibly-unprivileged owner
of schema X decides to drop it? If the extension itself is considered
to live within the schema, then "the whole extension goes away" seems
like a natural answer. If not, you've got some problems.
> Would we lower creating extension privileges to database owners, too,
> rather than only superusers?
That seems like an orthogonal question. I can see people wanting both
behaviors though. Maybe an extension's config file should specify the
privs needed to install it?
regards, tom lane
