From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_execute_from_file review |
Date: | 2010-12-06 20:37:12 |
Message-ID: | 2BC70EF7-9E26-4E5F-BB30-3C26807E80D2@kineticode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> There's a difference between whether an extension as such is considered
> to belong to a schema and whether its contained objects do. We can't
> really avoid the fact that functions, operators, etc must be assigned to
> some particular schema.
Right, of course.
> It seems not particularly important that
> extension names be schema-qualified, though --- the use-case for having
> two different extensions named "foo" installed simultaneously seems
> pretty darn small. On the other hand, if we were enforcing that all
> objects contained in an extension belong to the same schema, it'd make
> logistical sense to consider that the extension itself belongs to that
> schema as well. But last I heard we didn't want to enforce such a
> restriction.
Okay.
> I believe what the search_path substitution is actually about is to
> provide a convenient shorthand for the case that all the contained
> objects do indeed live in one schema, and you'd like to be able to
> select that schema at CREATE EXTENSION time. Which seems like a useful
> feature for a common case. We've certainly heard multiple complaints
> about the fact that you can't do that easily now.
Yes, it *is* useful. But what happens if I have
SET search_path = whatever;
In my extension install script, and someone executes CREATE EXTENSION FOO WITH SCHEMA bar; Surprise! Everything is in whatever, not in bar.
> BTW, I did think of a case where substitution solves a problem we don't
> presently have any other solution for: referring to the target schema
> within the definition of a contained object. As an example, you might
> wish to attach "SET search_path = @target_schema@" to the definition of
> a SQL function in an extension, to prevent search-path-related security
> issues in the use of the function. Without substitution you'll be
> reduced to hard-wiring the name of the target schema.
You lost me. :-(
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2010-12-06 20:41:11 | Re: serializable read only deferrable |
Previous Message | Alexandre Riveira | 2010-12-06 19:54:27 | Re: Per-column collation |