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

Re: Extension Facility

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extension Facility
Date: 2009-07-23 09:11:20
Message-ID: 87prbrbw7b.fsf@hi-media-techno.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Jul 23, 2009, at 1:08 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> Easy answer for first version: don't allow user to install extension in
>> another place than what we think will better suit him, and that's the
>> new schema pg_extension, which always lies just before pg_catalog in the
>> search_path.
>
> Well, I think that it's reasonable to allow an extension to be in any
> schema, with the default being pg_extension, but all of the objects in  a
> single extension should assume that they're all in the same schema,  at
> least to start. I mean, I can see the need for secondary schemas  (or
> sub-schemas?) for encapsulation, but do we really need to go there  in the
> first rev?

Well the problem with that is if for example I define foo() and bar()
functions in my extension, and the user also has a foo() function in his
own stuff (possibly lying in public, say).

Now if in my extenion in function bar() I call foo(), how do I make sure
I'm calling my extension's foo()?

-- 
dim

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2009-07-23 09:28:09
Subject: Re: Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2009-07-23 09:01:28
Subject: Re: Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

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