Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: search_path vs extensions

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions
Date: 2009-05-29 10:08:15
Message-ID: 200905291308.15564.peter_e@gmx.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thursday 28 May 2009 02:57:00 Josh Berkus wrote:
> Personally, if we're tracking stuff through special dependancies which
> pg_dump will be aware of anyway, I don't see why extension objects
> should go into a special schema.

But they clearly have to go into *some* schema, and it would add some clarity 
to the world if we made a recommendation which one that is.  Which is what 
some of the subproposals really come down to.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2009-05-29 10:18:31
Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2009-05-29 08:17:02
Subject: Re: Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group