On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 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 withdrawn.
>
> I don't deny that there are risks here. But I think the value of being
> able to move an extension when it is safe outweighs the difficulty that
> sometimes it isn't safe. I think we can leave making it safer as a
> topic for future investigation.
Personally, I'ld rather be able to install the *same*
extension/version in different schemas at the same time then move an
extension from 1 schema to another, although I have no problems with
extensions moving out under a function's foot (just like loose
objects).
a.
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan@highrise.ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
