On 12/07/2010 11:13 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
There's a difference between whether an extension as such is considered
to belong to a schema and whether its contained objects do. We can't
really avoid the fact that functions, operators, etc must be assigned to
some particular schema. It seems not particularly important that
extension names be schema-qualified, though --- the use-case for having
two different extensions named "foo" installed simultaneously seems
pretty darn small. On the other hand, if we were enforcing that all
objects contained in an extension belong to the same schema, it'd make
logistical sense to consider that the extension itself belongs to that
schema as well. But last I heard we didn't want to enforce such a
restriction.
Why not? This feature seems to be pretty heavily designed around the
assumption that everything's going to live in one schema, so is there
any harm in making that explicit?
In previous discussions IIRC the consensus was that we should not force
that on either Extension writers or users.
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
