Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > There's a difference between whether an extension as such is considered > to belong to a schema and whether its contained objects do. We can't > really avoid the fact that functions, operators, etc must be assigned to > some particular schema. It seems not particularly important that > extension names be schema-qualified, though --- the use-case for having > two different extensions named "foo" installed simultaneously seems > pretty darn small. On the other hand, if we were enforcing that all > objects contained in an extension belong to the same schema, it'd make > logistical sense to consider that the extension itself belongs to that > schema as well. But last I heard we didn't want to enforce such a > restriction.
Very good summary, thank you, that's exactly the ideas I've been working with. Which ain't surprising, after all we've been talking about this for 18 months already :) So in the current patch, extensions are not schema qualified. > I believe what the search_path substitution is actually about is to > provide a convenient shorthand for the case that all the contained > objects do indeed live in one schema, and you'd like to be able to > select that schema at CREATE EXTENSION time. Which seems like a useful > feature for a common case. We've certainly heard multiple complaints > about the fact that you can't do that easily now. Exactly. It's just a useful little thing, but given that it depends on how the script is written, maybe the right interface would be a 2-steps process, so that either it does what you want or you get an error. Current patch: CREATE EXTENSION foo WITH SCHEMA bar; If foo's script isn't using @extschema@ or if it is using more than one schema, executing the script will not do anything like what you want to --- currently that's extension's author problem. Other idea: CREATE EXTENSION foo; ALTER EXTENSION foo SET SCHEMA utils; CREATE EXTENSION bar; ALTER EXTENSION bar SET SCHEMA utils; ERROR: the extension "bar" has installed objects in more than one schema DETAIL: extension depends on schema "public" and "baz" HINT: use pg_extension_objects() to list bar's objects > BTW, I did think of a case where substitution solves a problem we don't > presently have any other solution for: referring to the target schema > within the definition of a contained object. As an example, you might > wish to attach "SET search_path = @target_schema@" to the definition of > a SQL function in an extension, to prevent search-path-related security > issues in the use of the function. Without substitution you'll be > reduced to hard-wiring the name of the target schema. Right. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
