| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: search_path vs extensions |
| Date: | 2009-05-29 00:32:14 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070905281732w12048e63j704af93a7d8305f5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> It also seems to me that we're getting seriously sidetracked from the
>>> dependency-tracking part of this project which seems to me to be a
>>> much deeper and more fundamental issue.
>> I thought that part was a pretty simple problem, actually. Have an
>> object representing the module, make sure each component object in the
>> module has an AUTO dependency link to that object. Where's the
>> difficulty?
I think it's a simple problem too... except for the not-so-small
detail of who is going to implement it.
> Well, yes. Honestly, I think all this search_path stuff is a red herring. We
> are once again in danger of over-designing this instead of doing the simple
> thing first (namely, don't worry about the search_path).
Right.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-05-29 00:53:17 | Re: Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-05-29 00:29:40 | Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up |