Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Stark <st...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
I'm actually not sure if we should allow extensions to be installed
into separate schemas.
It's starting to seem that best practice is to install "public"
functions/etc into a common schema and "private" objects into an
extension-specific schema. The main problem with that from an extension
author's point of view is the need to explicitly qualify all references
to private objects, since they won't be in the search path. Which is
tedious, but doable.
The main problem as I see it is that you are abandoning one of the two
uses of schemas, namely namespace separation. With this pattern an
extension author has no guarantee that there won't be a name collision
with some other extension. Pace Greg, schemas are not just about privacy.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
