On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Well, the difference is that loose objects are just on my system, >> whereas extensions are supposed to work on anybody's system. I'm not >> clear that it's possible to write an extension that depends on a >> relocatable extension in a sensible way. If it is, objection >> withdrawn. > > I don't deny that there are risks here. But I think the value of being > able to move an extension when it is safe outweighs the difficulty that > sometimes it isn't safe. I think we can leave making it safer as a > topic for future investigation. Personally, I'ld rather be able to install the *same* extension/version in different schemas at the same time then move an extension from 1 schema to another, although I have no problems with extensions moving out under a function's foot (just like loose objects). a. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, ai...@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
