| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, 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 00:32:47 |
| Message-ID: | 4A1DDBAF.4010403@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
+1
I think Josh is right about extensions, but we certainly do need more
powerful tools to manipulate the search path.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-28 00:38:49 | Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-05-28 00:20:36 | Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions |