Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > Having a schema that isn't pg_catalog doesn't necessairly mean we need a > schema per extension. Just a 'pg_extensions' schema, which is added to > search_path behind the scenes (just like pg_catalog..) would be better > than having everything go into pg_catalog. I'd prefer that we let the > admins control both where extensions get installed to and what schemas > are added to the end of the search_path.
That was discussed in the scope of the first extension patch and it took us about 1 year to conclude not to try to solve search_path at the same time as extensions. I'm not convinced we've had extensions for long enough to be able to reach a conclusion already, but I'll friendly watch that conversation happen again. My opinion is that a pg_extension schema with a proper and well documented set of search_path properties would be good to have. A way to rename it per-database doesn't strike me as that useful as long as we have ALTER EXTENSION … SET SCHEMA … The current default schema where to install extensions being "public", almost anything we do on that front will be an improvement. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
