Re: search_path vs extensions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions
Date: 2009-05-28 19:16:21
Message-ID: 25183.1243538181@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> It also seems to me that we're getting seriously sidetracked from the
> dependency-tracking part of this project which seems to me to be a
> much deeper and more fundamental issue.

I thought that part was a pretty simple problem, actually. Have an
object representing the module, make sure each component object in the
module has an AUTO dependency link to that object. Where's the
difficulty?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2009-05-28 19:20:00 Re: search_path vs extensions
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2009-05-28 19:16:06 Re: proposal: early casting in plpgsql