Miha Vrhovnik <miha.vrhovnik@gmail.com> writes: > What are then extensions.. They live in some sort of limbo.. as they don't > behave like a natural extension of the database... As they behave > differently (because they "require" public shema in path if extensions are > created while in public schema ).
You've got the wrong mental model. Extensions are containers, which may *contain* objects that live within schemas, but the extension itself does not. The key reason for doing it that way is that an extension might itself contain a schema, or more than one schema.
Put a bit differently, extensions are global objects like roles. With roles you grant permissions on individual databases for each role to access it. For extensions you "create extension" within individual databases to enable the extension in each one - potentially making its components visible in a user-defined schema, but also the extension can use schemas in its own non-adjustable ways.
