út 1. 6. 2021 v 17:57 odesílatel Joel Jacobson <j...@compiler.org> napsal:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, at 14:41, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > út 1. 6. 2021 v 13:13 odesílatel Joel Jacobson <j...@compiler.org> napsal: > > I don't agree. If an extension provides functionality that is supposed to > be used by all parts of the system, then I think the 'public' schema is a > good choice. > > > I disagree > > usual design of extensions (when schema is used) is > > create schema ... > set schema ... > > create table > create function > > It is hard to say if it is good or it is bad. > > > Yes, it's hard, because it's a matter of taste. > Some prefer convenience, others clarity/safety. > > Orafce using my own schema, and some things are in public (and some in > pg_catalog), and people don't tell me, so it was a good choice. > > > I struggle to understand this last sentence. > So you orafce extension installs objects in both public and pg_catalog, > right. > But what do you mean with "people don't tell me"? > And what "was a good choice"? > I learned programming on Orafce, and I didn't expect any success, so I designed it quickly, and the placing of old Orafce's functions to schemas is messy. I am sure, if I started again, I would never use pg_catalog or public schema. I think if somebody uses schema, then it is good to use schema for all without exceptions - but it expects usage of search_path. I am not sure if using public schema or using search_path are two sides of one thing. Pavel > > Thanks for explaining. > > /Joel >
