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
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 |