Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> Anyway, in a less blue-sky vein: we could fix some of these problems by
>> having an explicit relocatable-or-not property for extensions. If it is
>> relocatable, it's required to keep all its owned objects in the target
>> schema, and ALTER EXTENSION .. SET SCHEMA is allowed; else not. This
>> does nothing for the fix-the-search_path-property problem, though.
> The search_path is the complex (as in AI complete) part of it, but given
> your idea here, we could make it so that only the non-relocatable
> extensions benefit from the @extschema@ placeholder.
Er ... what good is that? A non-relocatable extension doesn't *need*
any such substitution, because it knows perfectly well what schema it's
putting its stuff into. Only the relocatable case has use for it. So
you might as well drop the substitution mechanism entirely.
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
