From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name |
Date: | 2010-10-30 22:59:30 |
Message-ID: | 218.1288479570@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> As soon as we have that ability, we are able to provide for relocatable
> extensions with the following command:
> ALTER EXTENSION ext SET SCHEMA name;
> ALTER EXTENSION ext SET SCHEMA foo TO bar;
> I think that would end the open debate about search_path vs extension,
> because each user would be able to relocate his local extensions easily,
> wherever the main script has installed them (often enough, public).
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.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2010-10-31 02:12:24 | Re: Hash support for arrays |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-10-30 21:05:31 | ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name |