From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, nikolay(at)samokhvalov(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module |
Date: | 2007-01-25 18:57:00 |
Message-ID: | 45B8FD7C.4030703@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>
>>> This might be a good idea, but it's hardly transparent; it can be
>>> counted on to break the applications of just about everyone using those
>>> modules today.
>>>
>> Hmm, can we make separate schema for all contib modules and include it
>> in default search_path? It will not touchs most users.
>>
>
> Oh now that is interesting... something like a contrib schema that
> everything is loaded into? That would would work nicely and removes a
> lot of problems.
>
> People can use the modules if they want, they don't have to enable the
> functions but they aren't in the way of their app or db either.
>
>
>
I think I'd rather have one schema per module than one for all of
contrib, but maybe the addition to the search path makes a single schema
more sensible.
Another approach to backwards compatibility issue, perhaps, would have 2
install scripts per module, one that installs stuff in the public schema
for legacy purposes, and one that uses a dedicated schema.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-01-25 18:59:33 | Re: No ~ operator for box, point |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-01-25 18:56:46 | Implied Functional index use (redux) |