On Monday 16 June 2008 21:12:23 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 06:00:33PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>> I, too, would be happy to do the legwork on this one. I believe
> >>> we'd want to have both per-db and per-role settings for
> >>> search_path. What's involved with creating that latter?
> >>
> >> Proper support for module install / uninstall will be a far better
> >> solution. Why would you wast your time on something that will be at
> >> best half-baked?
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing something big, but I don't quite see what
> > constitutes "proper" that doesn't involve the module's having at least
> > one schema to itself. Does this mean we'd be freezing modules in
> > their first-deployed form? It seems to me that DROP SCHEMA ...
> > CASCADE is just the right level of modularity combined with
> > flexibility post-installation.
>
> ISTM that "uninstall foomodule" will be a whole lot nicer.
>
> If we record all the objects that the module contains, then we would
> just drop them.
>
> The module could involve one schema, or several schemas, or none.
>
> Maybe that's the "something big".
>
I think individual schemas is nicer, since it has helped me getting around
these problems for years now, while module support is still vaporware.
However, I am looking forward to your patch. :-)
BTW, I am suspecting part of your support will be giving pg_dump -m and -M
flags to control dumping or ignoring of specific modules?
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
