Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>
>> I'm actually not sure if we should allow extensions to be installed
>> into separate schemas.
>>
>
> It's starting to seem that best practice is to install "public"
> functions/etc into a common schema and "private" objects into an
> extension-specific schema. The main problem with that from an extension
> author's point of view is the need to explicitly qualify all references
> to private objects, since they won't be in the search path. Which is
> tedious, but doable.
>
The main problem as I see it is that you are abandoning one of the two
uses of schemas, namely namespace separation. With this pattern an
extension author has no guarantee that there won't be a name collision
with some other extension. Pace Greg, schemas are not just about privacy.
cheers
andrew
