On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 09:49:25PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> So what are we thinking here? Along with my suggestion of
> >> extensions / contrib that we modify initdb to load an extensions
> >> schema with all extensions into template1?
> > 
> > No, I don't think so.  If you do that it's effectively moving all
> > that stuff into core, especially if you haven't provided a way to
> > turn it off.
> O.k. any thoughts there? What if we didn't make the extensions
> schema PUBLIC? Meaning that explicits rights would have to be given
> for the extensions to be used by anyone but a super user?

Whether they're auto-installable or not, I'd vote for putting each one
in its own schema by default.  That way, people can get an excellent
idea just by looking at what schemas exist what extensions are
installed in a given DB, and it's fairly straight-forward to remove
the thing simply by dropping the schema cascade.

> Obviously the initdb switch could also be selective:
> initdb --enable-extensions

If it were an initdb switch, I'd want to have something more like


David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778        AIM: dfetter666
                              Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to