On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> ... My main question is if we are >> ok with SCHEMA having different behavior with CASCADE vs without >> CASCADE. I went originally with "no" and added the DEFAULT flag to >> SCHEMA. If the answer is "yes" then we don't need the flag (in that case >> CASCADE acts as the flag). > > Yeah, I was coming around to that position as well. Insisting that > SCHEMA throw an error if the extension isn't relocatable makes sense > as long as only one extension is being considered, but once you say > CASCADE it seems like mostly a usability fail. I think it's probably > OK if with CASCADE, SCHEMA is just "use if needed else ignore".
OK, I'm fine with that, aka with CASCADE and a SCHEMA specified we use it if needed or ignore it otherwise (if I am following correctly). "CREATE EXTENSION foo SCHEMA bar" will fail if the extension is not relocatable *and* does not have a schema specified in its control file. A non-relocatable extension can be initially created anywhere. It just cannot be moved afterwards from its original schema. > Obviously we've gotta document all this properly. Sure. That's a sine-qua-non condition for this patch. Regards, -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
