On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > General opinion around Red Hat is relocatable RPMs don't work. But > pushing a set of functions from one schema to another is a very much > narrower problem than what an RPM has to deal with, so I'm not convinced > that the analogy holds. > > Now, if you want to argue that moving an extension after the fact (ALTER > EXTENSION SET SCHEMA) is so dangerous as to be useless, I wouldn't > argue very hard. Do you want to propose ripping that out? But > relocating at first install doesn't seem horrible.
I'm not very concerned about letting people set the schema after the fact. If we think it's OK for them to whack the location around at first install, I don't know why we shouldn't also let them whack it around later. The question I have is whether it's really reasonable to let extension-owned objects be moved around at all. It'll probably work fine as long as there are no other extensions depending on the one that's getting moved, but it doesn't pay to design for the trivial case. The real issue is what happens when you want to install extension A, which depends on extensions B, C, and D, and B, C, and D are all in non-standard locations. Does that have any chance of working under the system we're proposing? -- 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
