Re: search_path vs extensions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions
Date: 2009-05-28 00:18:48
Message-ID: 21443.1243469928@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> 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.

Well, we could certainly take that attitude and eliminate all this
hassle ;-). However, I think that more-flexible search path handling
might have other uses, so I don't see any reason not to think about it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2009-05-28 00:20:36 Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2009-05-27 23:57:00 Re: search_path vs extensions