> I don't think "all or nothing" is a good way to do this. 500
> functions in a schema called extensions isn't much more helpful than
> 500 in public. There's a reason namespaces were invented long ago,
> and this is classic use case for same. :)
I disagree, see my post previously about initializing the extensions
schema to not be accessible initially. It would be there, it would be
loaded, but it would take a superuser to grant ability to access functions.
This allows a clean distinction between the modules while allowing their
access on a case by case basis.
>>>> And have to parse for each extension?
>>> I don't see this as a big problem.
>> Well I am not really interesting in this. Someone else is welcome to
>> try that.
> It's really not hard, even for a C n00b like me. :)
I didn't say it was hard. I said I wasn't interested :)
Joshua D. Drake
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?