Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> Mph. Although such an extension should certainly carry a dependency on
>> the schema it's using, I'm not sure that it makes sense to consider that
>> the extension (as opposed to its contained objects) belongs to the
>> schema.
> Well yes, extension are not living in a schema, we just offer users a
> way to influence the script as far as where the extension's objects are
> to be found and register a dependency so that it's easy to remember what
> the users asked. So that for example we are able to act the same way on
> pg_restore.
Oh: then you're doing it wrong. If you want to remember that WITH
SCHEMA was specified, you need to explicitly store that as another
column in pg_extension. You should not be depending on the dependency
mechanism to remember that for you, any more than we'd use pg_depend to
remember a table's relnamespace. The dependency mechanism is there
to figure out the consequences of a DROP command, it's not there to
remember arbitrary facts. (And yes, I know that we've cheated on that
principle a few times before; but you can't do it here.)
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
