From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | 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 01:16:54 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYVA+_Vuj0hCHGc2R3weLTsVcsCQHBrUzX=FeamVisYxw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-02-04 01:20:01 | Re: json api WIP patch |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2013-02-04 00:51:59 | Re: PATCH: Split stats file per database WAS: autovacuum stress-testing our system |