On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The real issue is what happens when you want to install
>> extension A, which depends on extensions B, C, and D, and B, C, and D
>> are all in non-standard locations. Does that have any chance of
>> working under the system we're proposing?
>
> Again, it's not really any different from the case where the dependent
> objects are "loose" rather than members of an extension. It's pretty
> much up to the user to be aware of the consequences. If we had a way to
> mark individual functions as safe or unsafe for renames to happen, it'd
> be reasonable to extend that notion to whole extensions. But we don't
> have that and I don't think it's appropriate to hold extensions to a
> higher standard than we do loose objects --- especially when it takes
> superuser privileges to break things by moving an extension but not to
> break them by moving loose objects.
Well, the difference is that loose objects are just on my system,
whereas extensions are supposed to work on anybody's system. I'm not
clear that it's possible to write an extension that depends on a
relocatable extension in a sensible way. If it is, objection
withdrawn.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
