Re: search_path vs extensions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: search_path vs extensions
Date
Msg-id 4A1DD34C.2030907@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: search_path vs extensions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: search_path vs extensions
Re: search_path vs extensions
List pgsql-hackers
Tom,

> I think what this discussion is about is trying to gauge just what
> amount of support we could give someone who insisted on dropping each
> extension into a different schema.  It's not really related to how
> we track which objects belong to which extension.

Really, they're on their own.

Either we drop everything into a standard pg_extensions schema (which is 
then programmatically part of the search path, like pg_catalog is) or we 
don't install them to any particular schema and leave it up to the DBA 
to work out any search_path issues on their own.

Personally, if we're tracking stuff through special dependancies which 
pg_dump will be aware of anyway, I don't see why extension objects 
should go into a special schema.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions