| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Subject: | Re: adminpack and pg_catalog |
| Date: | 2006-11-06 03:25:24 |
| Message-ID: | 1162783524.5692.371.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 22:59 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Nothing except initdb should add objects in pg_catalog. AFAICS,
> adminpack doesn't have any special requirements, so it should behave
> like all other contrib modules.
Where are we on this? When this topic was last discussed, the three
alternatives were:
(1) Modify contrib/adminpack to not use the pg_catalog schema,
per the consensus that contrib/ packages installing objects
into that schema is broken behavior
(2) Don't modify contrib/adminpack, for the sake of backward
compatibility
(3) Remove contrib/adminpack from the Postgres distribution
I think the discussion was edging toward #3, but #2 is the only option
that I'm not happy with. Any other opinions out there?
Cheers,
Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brendan Jurd | 2006-11-06 03:44:42 | Indicate disabled triggers in \d |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2006-11-06 01:50:47 | Re: ldap: fix resource leak |