Re: search_path vs extensions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions
Date: 2009-05-27 21:25:16
Message-ID: 18458.1243459516@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Wait, I thought we'd given up on the search path model and wanted to
> track extensions via dependencies. No?

I think what this discussion is about is trying to gauge just what
amount of support we could give someone who insisted on dropping each
extension into a different schema. It's not really related to how
we track which objects belong to which extension.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Caleb Welton 2009-05-27 21:25:58 Re: [PATCH] plpythonu datatype conversion improvements
Previous Message Aidan Van Dyk 2009-05-27 21:22:40 Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up