On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> writes: >> On 09.05.2013 18:24, Robert Haas wrote: >>> In the attached new version of the patch, I added an explicit check to >>> prevent relocatable extensions from being created in pg_catalog. > >> Do we really want to forbid that? > > The only alternative I see is the one proposed in > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/12365.1358098...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Let me propose another alternative: it would be relatively straightforward to allow this to work differently in extension scripts than it does in general; it's already contingent in whether we're in bootstrap-processing mode, and there's no reason we couldn't add some other flag that gets set during extension-script processing mode, if there isn't one already, and make it contingent on that also. I think what we're concerned with is mostly preventing accidental object creation in pg_catalog, and allowing extensions to be created there wouldn't interfere with that. > I believe the DROP prohibition is mainly there to prevent > drop table pg_catalog.pg_proc; > ERROR: permission denied: "pg_proc" is a system catalog > but that thinking predates the invention of pg_depend. If this > check were removed, you'd still be prevented from dropping pg_proc > because it's pinned. Well, +1 for relaxing that restriction, no matter what else we do. But that only makes an accidental restore into pg_catalog less sucky, not less likely. -- 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
