On May 28, 2009, at 1:13 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Having all extensions live in pg_extension schema also solves the
problem in a much easier way, except for people who care about not
messing it all within a single schema (fourre-tout is the french for a
place where you put anything and everything).
Yes, just as long as your extensions schema doesn't turn into a
bricolage of stuff. I mean, if I use a lot of extensions, it means
that I end up with a giant collection of functions and types and
whatnot in this one namespace. PHP programmers might be happy with it,
but not I. ;-P
As Josh is saying too, as soon as we have SQL level extension object
with dependancies, we'll be able to list all of a particular
extension's
objects without needing to have them live in separate schemas.
\df pgq. -- list all functions in schema pgq
\dt pgq. -- list all tables in schema pgq
\de pgq. -- list all objects provided by extension pgq
Still, for extension upgrading or name collisions between
extensions, or
some more cases I'm not thinking about now, pg_extension will not be
all
what you need. We already have schemas and search_path, and it's not
always pretty nor fun to play with. Would prefix/suffix components
help?
Yes, but I'm not sure that's the best interface for that
functionality. Think I'll do some thinking on it myself…
Best,
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
