Robert Treat wrote:
> On Monday 16 June 2008 21:12:23 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> David Fetter wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 06:00:33PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I, too, would be happy to do the legwork on this one. I believe
>>>>> we'd want to have both per-db and per-role settings for
>>>>> search_path. What's involved with creating that latter?
>>>>>
>>>> Proper support for module install / uninstall will be a far better
>>>> solution. Why would you wast your time on something that will be at
>>>> best half-baked?
>>>>
>>> Maybe I'm missing something big, but I don't quite see what
>>> constitutes "proper" that doesn't involve the module's having at least
>>> one schema to itself. Does this mean we'd be freezing modules in
>>> their first-deployed form? It seems to me that DROP SCHEMA ...
>>> CASCADE is just the right level of modularity combined with
>>> flexibility post-installation.
>>>
>> ISTM that "uninstall foomodule" will be a whole lot nicer.
>>
>> If we record all the objects that the module contains, then we would
>> just drop them.
>>
>> The module could involve one schema, or several schemas, or none.
>>
>> Maybe that's the "something big".
>>
>>
>
> I think individual schemas is nicer, since it has helped me getting around
> these problems for years now, while module support is still vaporware.
> However, I am looking forward to your patch. :-)
>
Perhaps you have missed the WIP patch for module install/uninstall that
has already been submitted (not by me, by Tom Dunstan).
Tom Lane has already pointed out why the schema idea is bad. I agree
with every word he wrote.
> BTW, I am suspecting part of your support will be giving pg_dump -m and -M
> flags to control dumping or ignoring of specific modules?
>
>
s/your/his/. Possibly.
cheers
andrew
