| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crash in pgCrypto? |
| Date: | 2008-06-17 01:12:23 |
| Message-ID: | 48570F77.3090500@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 06:00:33PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>>> I, too, would be happy to do the legwork on this one. I believe
>>> we'd want to have both per-db and per-role settings for
>>> search_path. What's involved with creating that latter?
>>>
>> Proper support for module install / uninstall will be a far better
>> solution. Why would you wast your time on something that will be at
>> best half-baked?
>>
>
> 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. Does this mean we'd be freezing modules in
> their first-deployed form? It seems to me that DROP SCHEMA ...
> CASCADE is just the right level of modularity combined with
> flexibility post-installation.
>
ISTM that "uninstall foomodule" will be a whole lot nicer.
If we record all the objects that the module contains, then we would
just drop them.
The module could involve one schema, or several schemas, or none.
Maybe that's the "something big".
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-17 01:43:37 | Re: Crash in pgCrypto? |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2008-06-17 00:45:00 | Re: Reducing overhead for repeat de-TOASTing |