Re: ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name

--On 30. Oktober 2010 18:59:30 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> I'm not sure whether that really fixes anything, or just provides people
> with a larger-caliber foot-gun. See for example recent complaints about
> citext misbehaving if it's not in the public schema (or more generally,
> any schema not in the search path). I think we'd need to think a bit
> harder about the behavior of objects that aren't in the search path
> before creating a facility like this, since it seems to be tantamount
> to promising that extensions won't break when pushed around to different
> schemas.
>
> I'm also a bit less than enthused about the implementation approach.
> If we're going to have a policy that every object type must support
> ALTER SET SCHEMA, I think it might be time to refactor, rather than
> copying-and-pasting similar boilerplate code for every one.

This reminds me of a small discussion we had some years ago when i targeted
this for the sake of completeness of ASS (see
<http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-06/msg00021.php>).

I didn't follow the previous discussions about EXTENSION very closely, but
to amend the idea made in the mentioned thread, couldn't we just invent a
facility to move classes of objects belonging to an extension, only?

--
Thanks

Bernd