Re: [FEATURE] Add schema option to all relevant objects

On Friday, July 8, 2011, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
> On 8 July 2011 20:15, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>>>  * all extension changes are wrong according to me because they aren't
>>>>   schema objects, but database objects. I don't keep them.
>>>
>>> The reason why I based it on schema is because I wanted it to inherit
>>> the schema combobox object and its source for a list of schemas so
>>> lots of redundant code could be removed.  There should be no
>>> functional difference, but I'm probably missing the point here. :)
>>
>> It's a misuse of the class, because it's intended to represent the
>> schema the object is in, not one it's related to in some other way.
>> We've made the mistake of trying to use these classes in ways that
>> weren't intended in the past, and it's bitten us badly. I'm not keen
>> to repeat that, for the sake of a few lines of code to store a schema
>> name,
>
> Whilst I don't see the actual impact, I'll concede the point since
> I've only just started looking at code really so wouldn't have seen
> the issue first-hand.  Extensions are a weird case for me since you
> can assign them to a schema, but they are immune to being hidden by
> the search path.

Think of an extension as 2 things - the packaging, and the contents.
The packaging is what we show under the Database node - it doesn't
have a schema. The contents do have a schema, and the packaging
mechanism gives you a simple way to change it.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company