Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: search_path vs extensions

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: 2009-05-28 16:26:38
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On May 28, 2009, at 1:34 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:

> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>>>  "we all agree that a specific pg_extension schema is a good idea,  
>>> as
>>>   soon as user is free not to use it at extension install time".
>> I don't think we all agree on that at all. ;-)
> Ooops, my mistake, as few people where taking that as implicit and  
> as a
> reasoning basepoint in their mails, I assumed we were past the  
> question
> already. Sorry to see that's too quick a conclusion... and thanks for
> pointing out the absence of consensus!

I somehow missed Andrew's mail, but I agree that we don't all agree on  
that point. I'm fine with having a standard schema for extensions,  
just as long as I can tell the installer to actually install it in a  
different schema if I want/need to do so.



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2009-05-28 16:28:15
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-05-28 16:21:49
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group