| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: search_path vs extensions |
| Date: | 2009-05-29 15:12:14 |
| Message-ID: | 17726.1243609934@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> writes:
> Le 29 mai 09 16:11, Andrew Dunstan a crit :
>> I think almost all these difficulties could be overcome if we had
>> some sort of aliasing support, so that arbitrary objects in schema a
>> could be aliased in schema b. If that were in place, best practice
>> would undoubtedly be for each module to install in its own schema,
>> and for the DBA to alias what is appropriate to their usage scenario.
> This coupled with Peter's idea of nested namespace seems a killer
> feature for me.
What it sounds like to me is an amazingly complicated gadget with
absolutely no precedent of successful use anywhere. We'll spend a year
fooling with the details of this and be no closer to actually solving
the problem at hand, namely getting a simple workable extension
packaging facility.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2009-05-29 15:12:29 | Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up |
| Previous Message | Markus Wanner | 2009-05-29 15:05:59 | Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up |