Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: search_path vs extensions

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions
Date: 2009-05-29 21:58:18
Message-ID: 4A205A7A.3070007@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert,

> Of course we have no notion of exporting or importing names at all.
> Maybe we should.  But I'm still of the opinion that this entire
> discussion is a tangent.

As far as Extensions are concerned?  Yes, it is.

Dimitri:  I vote for you to get on with assuming everything goes into 
pg_extensions.  We can always change that later if there's any kind of 
consensus.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2009-05-29 22:00:14
Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2009-05-29 21:52:59
Subject: Re: search_path improvements WAS: search_path vs extensions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group