On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 05:39:09AM +0000, Kuroda, Hayato wrote: > I seem this patch is enough, but could you explain the reason > you drop initial proposal more detail? > I'm not sure why extensions contained by temporary schemas are > acceptable.
Because there are cases where they actually work. We have some of these in core. >> Anything depending on a temporary object will be dropped per >> dependency links once the session is over. > > Extensions locate at pg_temp_* schemas are temporary objects IMO. > How do you think? Would you implement this functionality in future? Per the game of dependencies, extensions located in a temporary schema would get automatically dropped at session end. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
