> > "Regina Obe" <l...@pcorp.us> writes: > >> I have a distinct sense of deja vu here. I think this idea, or > >> something isomorphic to it, was previously discussed with some other > syntax details. > > > I found the old discussion I recalled having and Stephen had suggested > > using @extschema{'postgis'}@ On this thread -- > > https://www.postgresql.org/message- > id/20160425232251.GR10850@tamriel.s > > nowman.net > > Is that the one you remember? > > Hmmm ... no, ISTM it was considerably more recent than that. > [ ...digs... ] Here we go, it was in the discussion around converting contrib SQL > functions to new-style: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message- > id/flat/3395418.1618352794%40sss.pgh.pa.us > > There are a few different ideas bandied around in there. > Personally I still like the @extschema:extensionname@ option the best, > though. > > regards, tom lane
Here is first version of my patch using the @extschema:extensionname@ syntax you proposed. This patch includes: 1) Changes to replace references of @extschema:extensionname@ with the schema of the required extension 2) Documentation for the feature 3) Tests for the feature. There is one issue I thought about that is not addressed by this. If an extension is required by another extension and that required extension schema is referenced in the extension scripts using the @extschema:extensionname@ syntax, then ideally we should prevent the required extension from being relocatable. This would prevent a user from accidentally moving the required extension, thus breaking the dependent extensions. I didn't add that feature cause I wasn't sure if it was overstepping the bounds of what should be done, or if we leave it up to the user to just know better. Thanks, Regina
0001-Allow-use-of-extschema-reqextname-to-reference.patch
Description: Binary data