| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, David E(dot) Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extensions, this time with a patch |
| Date: | 2010-10-22 16:30:22 |
| Message-ID: | m2wrpa5gwx.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Dimitri Fontaine's message of vie oct 22 12:25:07 -0300 2010:
>
>> Now, if we want to do it the other way round and force extension name to
>> be the filename, we will have to live with all the restrictions that
>> filename imposes and that are not the same depending on the OS and the
>> filesystem, I think, and with systems where we have no way to know what
>> is the filesystem encoding. Am I wring in thinking that this might be a
>> problem?
>
> I don't see a problem limiting extension names to use only ASCII chars,
> and a subset of those, at that. They're just names. If you want to get
> fancy you can use the description.
So extension names are forced into English? I would live with that, I
just don't find the answer friendly to the users.
I'd think we can live with some directory scanning that only happens
when installing extensions, or checking available extensions. All of
which being superuser only.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2010-10-22 16:40:33 | Re: Creation of temporary tables on read-only standby servers |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-10-22 16:19:30 | Re: Extensions, this time with a patch |