Re: Extension Facility
От | David E. Wheeler |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Extension Facility |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 600C202C-FBBA-4DBD-A238-E02EFF95387D@kineticode.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Extension Facility (Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Extension Facility
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Jul 23, 2009, at 1:08 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Easy answer for first version: don't allow user to install extension > in > another place than what we think will better suit him, and that's the > new schema pg_extension, which always lies just before pg_catalog in > the > search_path. Well, I think that it's reasonable to allow an extension to be in any schema, with the default being pg_extension, but all of the objects in a single extension should assume that they're all in the same schema, at least to start. I mean, I can see the need for secondary schemas (or sub-schemas?) for encapsulation, but do we really need to go there in the first rev? > Yes. I came up with the beginning of something (major version > dependant > additional install.sql files) but then you need to control ordering, > so > maybe pre and post install files with major version dependant > derivatives. "Over engineered" is certainly the comment I'll hear > about > it. Yeah, so omit it for now, I say. Start with what's widely agreed-upon and relatively simple. We can iterate this pony over time. Best, David
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: