On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Well, I don't put any stock in the idea that it's important for existing > module .sql files to be usable as-is as extension definition files. If > it happens to fall out that way, fine, but we shouldn't give up anything > else to get that.
I agree, but I don't think we have to lose anything. > Letting extension files be directly sourceable in > psql is probably worth a bit more, but I'm not sure how much. The > argument that forgetting to include a magic source_path command would > make CREATE EXTENSION behave surprisingly seems to have a good deal of > merit though, certainly enough to justify having CREATE EXTENSION take > care of that internally if at all possible. Yes. The other question I have, though, is how important is it to have extensions live in a particular schema since there seems to be no advantage to doing so. With the current patch, I can put extension "foo" in schema "bar", but I can't put any other extension named "foo" in any other schema. It's in schema "bar" but is at the same time global. That doesn't make much sense to me. Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
