David Fetter wrote: > On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 02:14:36PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > I don't think "all or nothing" is a good way to do this. 500 > > > functions in a schema called extensions isn't much more helpful > > > than 500 in public. There's a reason namespaces were invented > > > long ago, and this is classic use case for same. :) > > > > I disagree, see my post previously about initializing the extensions > > schema to not be accessible initially. It would be there, it would > > be loaded, but it would take a superuser to grant ability to access > > functions. > > > > This allows a clean distinction between the modules while allowing > > their access on a case by case basis. > > It's 982 functions as of this writing in CVS TIP's contrib. Do you > not get how wacky it is to have that many functions, none of which > have any collision-prevention built into their install scripts, in a > flat namespace?
We currently have 1695 standard functions. I don't see a problem with putting the extensions all in one schema, but I also don't see the point. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings