On 2013-05-13 13:04:52 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> It disallowed it only for tables, and not for any other object type. > >> I found that completely arbitrary. It's perfectly obvious that people > >> want to be able to create objects in pg_catalog; shall we adopt a rule > >> that you can put extension there, as long as those extensions don't > >> happen to contain tables? That is certainly confusing and arbitrary. > > > > Why don't we just prohibit deletion/modification for anything below > > FirstNormalObjectId instead of using the schema as a restriction? Then > > we can allow creation for tables as well. > > We currently do, but that led to problems with $SUBJECT.
But we currently don't allow to drop. Which is confusingly inconsistent. And allowing object creation withing pg_catalog only from within extension scripts and not from normal SQL sounds like a *very* poor workaround giving problems to quite some people upgrading from earlier releases. Especially from those where we didn't have extensions. And I don't see why allowing consistent relation creation/removal from pg_catalog is conflicting with fixing the issue at hand? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers