Re: search_path vs extensions

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>> It also seems to me that we're getting seriously sidetracked from the
>>> dependency-tracking part of this project which seems to me to be a
>>> much deeper and more fundamental issue.
>> I thought that part was a pretty simple problem, actually.  Have an
>> object representing the module, make sure each component object in the
>> module has an AUTO dependency link to that object.  Where's the
>> difficulty?

I think it's a simple problem too...  except for the not-so-small
detail of who is going to implement it.

> Well, yes. Honestly, I think all this search_path stuff is a red herring. We
> are once again in danger of over-designing this instead of doing the simple
> thing first (namely, don't worry about the search_path).

Right.

...Robert