From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_execute_from_file review |
Date: | 2010-12-06 19:18:14 |
Message-ID: | 7BA78425-3C27-4B69-96E7-BE021D2C3C3C@kineticode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, I don't put any stock in the idea that it's important for existing
> module .sql files to be usable as-is as extension definition files. If
> it happens to fall out that way, fine, but we shouldn't give up anything
> else to get that.
I agree, but I don't think we have to lose anything.
> Letting extension files be directly sourceable in
> psql is probably worth a bit more, but I'm not sure how much. The
> argument that forgetting to include a magic source_path command would
> make CREATE EXTENSION behave surprisingly seems to have a good deal of
> merit though, certainly enough to justify having CREATE EXTENSION take
> care of that internally if at all possible.
Yes.
The other question I have, though, is how important is it to have extensions live in a particular schema since there seems to be no advantage to doing so. With the current patch, I can put extension "foo" in schema "bar", but I can't put any other extension named "foo" in any other schema. It's in schema "bar" but is at the same time global. That doesn't make much sense to me.
Best,
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-12-06 19:26:48 | Re: Per-column collation |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-06 19:12:48 | Re: pg_execute_from_file review |