Re: search_path vs extensions

On May 28, 2009, at 1:13 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:

> Having all extensions live in pg_extension schema also solves the
> problem in a much easier way, except for people who care about not
> messing it all within a single schema (fourre-tout is the french for a
> place where you put anything and everything).

Yes, just as long as your extensions schema doesn't turn into a
bricolage of stuff. I mean, if I use a lot of extensions, it means
that I end up with a giant collection of functions and types and
whatnot in this one namespace. PHP programmers might be happy with it,
but not I. ;-P

> As Josh is saying too, as soon as we have SQL level extension object
> with dependancies, we'll be able to list all of a particular
> extension's
> objects without needing to have them live in separate schemas.
> \df pgq. -- list all functions in schema pgq
> \dt pgq. -- list all tables in schema pgq
> \de pgq. -- list all objects provided by extension pgq
>
> Still, for extension upgrading or name collisions between
> extensions, or
> some more cases I'm not thinking about now, pg_extension will not be
> all
> what you need. We already have schemas and search_path, and it's not
> always pretty nor fun to play with. Would prefix/suffix components
> help?

Yes, but I'm not sure that's the best interface for that
functionality. Think I'll do some thinking on it myself…

Best,

David