Re: Final /contrib cleanup -- yes/no?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Final /contrib cleanup -- yes/no?
Date: 2008-11-06 22:24:09
Message-ID: 16137.1226010249@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> The way the SQL scripts currently work, there is no way to manage what
> schema the contrib modules get built in *except* to edit the scripts.

Right, that's the intended and documented way to do it.

> In fact, because of the SET statements, a DBA who might *reasonably*
> expect that setting PGOPTIONS would allow him to determine that will be
> unpleasantly surprised when the module ends up in "public" anyway.

I don't see that this is a reasonable expectation; it has never worked
in any previous release, and the documentation explicitly says to do the
other. Also, at least some of the proposed forms of a module facility
would have the effect of overriding any such approach anyhow.

Again, I'm not for whacking around the procedures for dealing with
contrib each time we make a release. We should change it once when we
have a shot at getting it right.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua Tolley 2008-11-06 22:33:09 Re: Proposed Patch to Improve Performance of Multi-Batch Hash Join for Skewed Data Sets
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2008-11-06 22:13:09 Re: Final /contrib cleanup -- yes/no?