On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
Why not? This feature seems to be pretty heavily designed around the assumption that everything's going to live in one schema, so is there any harm in making that explicit? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
