Re: Extension Facility
От | Dimitri Fontaine |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Extension Facility |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 87prbrbw7b.fsf@hi-media-techno.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Extension Facility ("David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Extension Facility
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes: > 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? Well the problem with that is if for example I define foo() and bar() functions in my extension, and the user also has a foo() function in his own stuff (possibly lying in public, say). Now if in my extenion in function bar() I call foo(), how do I make sure I'm calling my extension's foo()? -- dim
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: