"David E. Wheeler" <da...@kineticode.com> writes:
> On Dec 6, 2010, at 7:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> On the whole I'd prefer not to have any substitution functionality
>> hard-wired into pg_execute_file either, though I can see the argument
>> that it's necessary for practical use. Basically I'm concerned that
>> replace-equivalent behavior is not going to be satisfactory over the
>> long run: I think eventually we're going to need to think about
>> quoting/escaping behavior. So I think it's a bad idea to expose the
>> assumption that it'll be done that way at the SQL level.
> +1
> I suspect that, for the purposes of the extensions patch, if CREATE EXTENSION
> could be modified to handle setting the schema itself, without requiring that
> the file have this magic line:
> SET search_path = @extschema@;
> Then there would be no need for substitutions at all.
That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it's wise to design around
the assumption that we won't need substitutions ever. What I was
thinking was that we should try to limit knowledge of the substitution
behavior to the extension definition files and the implementation of
CREATE EXTENSION itself. I don't agree with exposing that information
at the SQL level.
(On the other hand, if we *could* avoid using any explicit
substitutions, it would certainly ease testing of extension files no?
They'd be sourceable into psql then.)
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
