Re: creating extension including dependencies

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: creating extension including dependencies
Date: 2015-07-21 12:59:44
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYb5FOAp8HfNbL+3T7aM75=TRkPTkkB6kSHUx3q3PjXLw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:> In > short I would give up on the
DEFAULT SCHEMA business, and
> add a new flag in the control file to decide if a given extension
> passes down the schema name of its child when created in cascade,
> default being true for the potential issues with search_path not
> pointing to public.

Well, so far, it seems like this decision is something where different
DBAs might have different policies. If you put the flag in the
control file, you're saying it is the extension developer's decision,
which may not be best.

Maybe I'm confused.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2015-07-21 13:14:25 Re: Fillfactor for GIN indexes
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2015-07-21 12:52:00 Re: Fillfactor for GIN indexes