Re: Crash in pgCrypto?

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> David Fetter wrote:
>> Maybe I'm missing something big, but I don't quite see what
>> constitutes "proper" that doesn't involve the module's having at least
>> one schema to itself.

> ISTM that "uninstall foomodule" will be a whole lot nicer.

Right. We have all the mechanism we need in the form of the dependency
stuff: you just make everything in the module auto-depend on the module
object. People who want to put their modules into private schemas can
do it, but they won't be forced to.

In any case, trying to define a module as a schema doesn't help at all
to solve the hard problem, which is how to get this stuff to play nice
with pg_dump. I think that the agreed-on solution was that pg_dump
should emit some kind of "LOAD MODULE foo" command, and *not* dump any
of the individual objects in the module. We can't have that if we try
to equate modules with schemas instead of making them a new kind of
object.

regards, tom lane