Re: cannot move relocatable extension out of pg_catalog schema

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: cannot move relocatable extension out of pg_catalog schema
Date: 2013-02-04 09:13:45
Message-ID: 510F7BC9.1080603@krosing.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 02/04/2013 02:16 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>> I wonder whether it'd not be a better idea to forbid specifying
>>> pg_catalog as the target schema for relocatable extensions.
>> But that would be important, I think.
> I understand the temptation to forbid pg_catalog as the target schema
> for relocatable extensions, or indeed for object creation in general.
> The fact that you can't, for example, go back and drop the objects
> later is a real downer. On the other hand, from a user perspective,
> it's really tempting to want to create certain extensions (adminpack,
> for example) in such a way that they appear to be "part of the system"
> rather than something that lives in a user schema. Had we some other
> solution to that problem (a second schema that behaves like pg_catalog
> but is empty by default and allows drops?) we might alleviate the need
> to put stuff in pg_catalog per se.
+1

Having a standard schema for extensions (say pg_extensions) is
something I have wanted multiple times.

Hannu
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kohei KaiGai 2013-02-04 09:17:18 Re: sepgsql and materialized views
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2013-02-04 08:55:20 Re: proposal: ANSI SQL 2011 syntax for named parameters