On Saturday, November 30, 2013, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Also consider multi-tenancy installations. Certainly, you don't want any
database owner to be able to review PL code from any other database
owner in the same cluster when each database owner is another customer
I'm planning to do a more comprehensive response, but the only use case that I see for extension templates is to be in a shared catalog and I don't see that as being a particularly compelling case.
Without that, all of the information about a given extension is already in the database in our dependency system. As you pointed out, there was previously a notion of "inline" templates. I'm not sure that particular patch is exactly where we want to go, but I absolutely do not like this idea that we have a "template" on a per-database level which does nothing but duplicate most of the information we *already have*, since you have to assume that if the extension template (which is per-database) exists then the extension has also been created in the database.
Having a versioning notion (and whatever other meta data we, or an extension author, feels is useful) for what are otherwise simple containers (aka the schematic we already have..) makes sense and it would be great to provide support around that, but not this duplication of object definitions.
Thanks,
Stephen
