Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I think we need to do *something* (and accordingly have added this to >> the 9.3 open items page so we don't forget about it). Whether Robert's >> idea is the best one probably depends in part on how clean the patch >> turns out to be.
> The attached patch attempts to implement this. I discovered that, in > fact, we have a number of places in our initdb-time scripts that rely > on the current behavior, but they weren't hard to fix; and in fact I > think the extra verbosity is probably not a bad thing here. > See what you think. I think this breaks contrib/adminpack, and perhaps other extensions. They'd not be hard to fix with script changes, but they'd be broken. In general, we would now have a situation where relocatable extensions could never be installed into pg_catalog. That might be OK, but at least it would need to be documented. Also, I think we'd be pretty much hard-wiring the decision that pg_dump will never dump objects in pg_catalog, because its method for selecting the creation schema won't work in that case. That probably is all right too, but we need to realize it's a consequence of this. As far as the code goes, OK except I strongly disapprove of removing the comment about temp_missing at line 3512. The coding is not any less a hack in that respect for having been pushed into a subroutine. If you want to rewrite the comment, fine, but failing to point out that something funny is going on is not a service to readers. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers