Re: search_path vs extensions
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: search_path vs extensions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4A1DD34C.2030907@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: search_path vs extensions (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: search_path vs extensions
Re: search_path vs extensions |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom, > I think what this discussion is about is trying to gauge just what > amount of support we could give someone who insisted on dropping each > extension into a different schema. It's not really related to how > we track which objects belong to which extension. Really, they're on their own. Either we drop everything into a standard pg_extensions schema (which is then programmatically part of the search path, like pg_catalog is) or we don't install them to any particular schema and leave it up to the DBA to work out any search_path issues on their own. Personally, if we're tracking stuff through special dependancies which pg_dump will be aware of anyway, I don't see why extension objects should go into a special schema. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. www.pgexperts.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: