Re: pg_execute_from_file review - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David E. Wheeler
Subject Re: pg_execute_from_file review
Date
Msg-id 2BC70EF7-9E26-4E5F-BB30-3C26807E80D2@kineticode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_execute_from_file review  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

> There's a difference between whether an extension as such is considered
> to belong to a schema and whether its contained objects do.  We can't
> really avoid the fact that functions, operators, etc must be assigned to
> some particular schema.

Right, of course.

> It seems not particularly important that
> extension names be schema-qualified, though --- the use-case for having
> two different extensions named "foo" installed simultaneously seems
> pretty darn small.  On the other hand, if we were enforcing that all
> objects contained in an extension belong to the same schema, it'd make
> logistical sense to consider that the extension itself belongs to that
> schema as well.  But last I heard we didn't want to enforce such a
> restriction.

Okay.

> I believe what the search_path substitution is actually about is to
> provide a convenient shorthand for the case that all the contained
> objects do indeed live in one schema, and you'd like to be able to
> select that schema at CREATE EXTENSION time.  Which seems like a useful
> feature for a common case.  We've certainly heard multiple complaints
> about the fact that you can't do that easily now.

Yes, it *is* useful. But what happens if I have
 SET search_path = whatever;

In my extension install script, and someone executes CREATE EXTENSION FOO WITH SCHEMA bar; Surprise! Everything is in
whatever,not in bar. 

> BTW, I did think of a case where substitution solves a problem we don't
> presently have any other solution for: referring to the target schema
> within the definition of a contained object.  As an example, you might
> wish to attach "SET search_path = @target_schema@" to the definition of
> a SQL function in an extension, to prevent search-path-related security
> issues in the use of the function.  Without substitution you'll be
> reduced to hard-wiring the name of the target schema.

You lost me. :-(

David




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexandre Riveira
Date:
Subject: Re: Per-column collation
Next
From: Florian Pflug
Date:
Subject: Re: serializable read only deferrable