Re: Modifying and solidifying contrib

Keep in mind all contrib loads into public, and I don't remember any
namespace conflict issues in the past.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > David Fetter wrote:
> >
> >> It's 982 functions as of this writing in CVS TIP's contrib. Do you
> >> not get how wacky it is to have that many functions, none of which
> >> have any collision-prevention built into their install scripts, in a
> >> flat namespace?
> >>
> >
> > We currently have 1695 standard functions. I don't see a problem with
> > putting the extensions all in one schema, but I also don't see the
> > point.
> >
> >
>
> I certainly don't see the point. But I do see a considerable point in
> having extensions use their own schemas. The fact that we have 1695
> standard functions means we bear the responsibility of ensuring we don't
> have name clashes among them. We should encourage extension authors by
> example to use the namespace facility to relieve themselves of having to
> ensure they don't clash not only with the standard functions but with
> other extensions. IOW we should act with respect to the namespace for
> extensions we distribute just like we would reasonably expect authors of
> third party extensions to behave.
>
> For backwards compatibility, we might be well advised also to distribute
> load scripts that put extension objects in the public schema as is done
> now, but this should be a deprecated practice, IMNSHO.
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +