On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > >> I think that technically this patch can be polished well enough to >> commit in the time we have available, but the question of whether >> it's the right design is harder, and I don't want that to be my >> call alone. > > I gather from previous posts that the intent isn't to allow different > packages from different authors to provide a common and compatible > feature; but what happens in the current design if someone > accidentally or maliciously produces an extension which provides the > same feature name as another extension? > > Would we need some registry?
One thing I was thinking about was whether we should restrict feature names to be of some specific form, like extension_name:feature_name. That would address this issue, and would also keep people from thinking of this as an alternatives mechanism, as I did. Of course, that doesn't prevent someone from publishing an ip4r module that erases your hard disk, but there's nothing much we can do about that problem from within core PostgreSQL. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
