Bruce Momjian wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
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

I certainly don't see the point. But I do see a considerable point in having extensions use their own schemas. The fact that we have 1695 standard functions means we bear the responsibility of ensuring we don't have name clashes among them. We should encourage extension authors by example to use the namespace facility to relieve themselves of having to ensure they don't clash not only with the standard functions but with other extensions. IOW we should act with respect to the namespace for extensions we distribute just like we would reasonably expect authors of third party extensions to behave.

For backwards compatibility, we might be well advised also to distribute load scripts that put extension objects in the public schema as is done now, but this should be a deprecated practice, IMNSHO.



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to