Re: search_path vs extensions

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions
Date: 2009-05-29 21:15:24
Message-ID: 4A20506C.3070009@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>
>> I'm actually not sure if we should allow extensions to be installed
>> into separate schemas.
>>
>
> It's starting to seem that best practice is to install "public"
> functions/etc into a common schema and "private" objects into an
> extension-specific schema. The main problem with that from an extension
> author's point of view is the need to explicitly qualify all references
> to private objects, since they won't be in the search path. Which is
> tedious, but doable.
>

The main problem as I see it is that you are abandoning one of the two
uses of schemas, namely namespace separation. With this pattern an
extension author has no guarantee that there won't be a name collision
with some other extension. Pace Greg, schemas are not just about privacy.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2009-05-29 21:25:55 Re: Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-05-29 20:49:32 Re: search_path vs extensions