On Saturday, November 30, 2013, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Also consider multi-tenancy installations. Certainly, you don't want any
> database owner to be able to review PL code from any other database
> owner in the same cluster when each database owner is another customer

I'm planning to do a more comprehensive response, but the only use case
that I see for extension templates is to be in a shared catalog and I don't
see that as being a particularly compelling case.

Without that, all of the information about a given extension is already in
the database in our dependency system. As you pointed out, there was
previously a notion of "inline" templates. I'm not sure that particular
patch is exactly where we want to go, but I absolutely do not like this
idea that we have a "template" on a per-database level which does nothing
but duplicate most of the information we *already have*, since you have to
assume that if the extension template (which is per-database) exists then
the extension has also been created in the database.

Having a versioning notion (and whatever other meta data we, or an
extension author, feels is useful) for what are otherwise simple containers
(aka the schematic we already have..) makes sense and it would be great to
provide support around that, but not this duplication of
object definitions.



Reply via email to