Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On 20 June 2015 at 18:19, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The key question here is whether filtering functions/operators at the
>> level of extensions is a good design. It seems to me like a reasonable
>> compromise between flexibility and ease of use, but others might see it
>> differently.
> I like that, but currently we handle things in terms of Schemas. It would
> be strange to have differing ways of specifying groups of objects. Maybe
> that's not a problem, but we'd probably need to analyse that to make sure
> it didn't make things more complex.
Fair point, but I think making it schema-based would be pretty awkward
for many common use-cases. By default, at least, all extensions get
dropped into schema public. I doubt it would be a good idea to say
"anything in public is transmittable".
regards, tom lane
