David Fetter wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 09:49:25PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>>>> So what are we thinking here? Along with my suggestion of
>>>> extensions / contrib that we modify initdb to load an extensions
>>>> schema with all extensions into template1?
>>> No, I don't think so. If you do that it's effectively moving all
>>> that stuff into core, especially if you haven't provided a way to
>>> turn it off.
>> O.k. any thoughts there? What if we didn't make the extensions
>> schema PUBLIC? Meaning that explicits rights would have to be given
>> for the extensions to be used by anyone but a super user?
>
> Whether they're auto-installable or not, I'd vote for putting each one
> in its own schema by default. That way, people can get an excellent
> idea just by looking at what schemas exist what extensions are
> installed in a given DB, and it's fairly straight-forward to remove
> the thing simply by dropping the schema cascade.
Well to me that gets a little messy. I mean:
pg_catalog,public,<user schemas>,xml2,ltree (just to get a could
functions?) etc...
>
>> Obviously the initdb switch could also be selective:
>>
>> initdb --enable-extensions
>
> If it were an initdb switch, I'd want to have something more like
>
> --enable-extension=earthdistance
And have to parse for each extension?
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Cheers,
> D
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/