On May 28, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 5:30 PM, David E. Wheeler <da...@kineticode.com
> wrote:
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
I don't understand what storing them in different namespaces and then
putting them all in your search_path accomplishes. You end up with the
same mishmash of things in your namespace.
The only way that mode of operation makes any sense to me is if you
explicitly prefix every invocation. Ie, you want the stuff installed
but not available in your namespace at all unless you explicitly
request it.
Yes, it allows me to work around a conflict in my application by
deciding to schema-qualify use of a one of the two conflicting
extensions. It's a way I can quickly work around the issue. Not ideal,
I grant you, but I don't see us getting into the business of setting
up a registry requiring uniqueness. Besides, some extensions, like
pgTAP, pretty much scream for a schema of their own completely
independent of everything else. I want the option to be able to do
that when appropriate. I don't think I'd ever put each module in its
own schema, FWIW.
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
