Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
To: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues
Date: 2009-03-23 08:51:17
Message-ID: 200903230951.17352.dfontaine@hi-media.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Monday 23 March 2009 04:05:04 Andrew Gierth wrote:
> Dimitri> Heard about http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/ExtensionPackaging ?
> Yes, I left a short note on its discussion page a while ago :-)

Hehe... I'll answer here, as it's a more opened forum it seems...

Schemas vs Extensions (or modules, we'll see): yes they are orthogonal
concepts, but still, extensions should not pollute the public namespace, I
(and some other) think.

So we're encouraging extension's authors to use their own schema where to put
the extension stuff, with the drawback that user would have to remember about
it and manage it along with their own schemas, which cause search_path issues.

I think your idea of splitting search_path into several components would help
a lot here.
--
dim

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message KaiGai Kohei 2009-03-23 09:01:28 [PATCH] SE-PostgreSQL for v8.5 development (r1769)
Previous Message Dimitri Fontaine 2009-03-23 08:41:48 Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues