David Fetter wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 02:14:36PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > 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.
> It's 982 functions as of this writing in CVS TIP's contrib.  Do you
> not get how wacky it is to have that many functions, none of which
> have any collision-prevention built into their install scripts, in a
> flat namespace?

We currently have 1695 standard functions.  I don't see a problem with
putting the extensions all in one schema, but I also don't see the

  Bruce Momjian   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to