Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
I see no
argument whatsoever why we should lock down extensions and only extensions
against this risk.
Spelled this way I can only agree :)
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
--
Sent via
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
One is ownership. Since we don't record the identity of the user who
created an extension, there's no way for pg_dump to ensure that it's
recreated by the same user. I think we'll regret that in future even
if you don't think it's problematic today. In
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
I think we'd better add an extowner column to pg_extension.
Agreed. There's no need to have it now but we will add it at some
point. So if now is when that works the best for you, I'm happy to see
that
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
No, I've hacked the code enough already that merging would be painful.
I'll keep working on it.
I supposed so much, but got to ask :)
Oh, duh, I'd forgotten about the OverrideSearchPath usage. So never
mind the above claim. But I still think it'd be a
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Quite aside from search path, cross-extension dependencies simply aren't
going to work unless pg_dump knows about them so it can load the
extensions in the right order. I had forgotten about the earthdistance
On Feb 7, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Also, I didn't bite this bullet, but maybe we should provide core PLs as
extension. Then CREATE LANGUAGE would maybe get deprecated and only
valid when used in an extension's script — or the next patch (UPGRADE)
will take care of create a
On Feb 7, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Interesting point. It's all right at the moment because I tweaked
pg_dump_sort.c so that procedural languages are dumped before modules.
But maybe we should convert the PLs to modules.
s/modules/extensions/?
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
On Feb 7, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Interesting point. It's all right at the moment because I tweaked
pg_dump_sort.c so that procedural languages are dumped before modules.
But maybe we should convert the PLs to modules.
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
I think we'd better add an extowner column to pg_extension.
Agreed. There's no need to have it now but we will add it at some
point. So if now is when that works the best for you, I'm happy to see
that
I wrote:
... So where I think we're going to end up
is adding a clause along the line of USING list-of-extension-names
to CREATE EXTENSION, storing those dependencies explicitly, and having
the CREATE EXTENSION code set search_path to the target schema followed
by the target schema(s) of the
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
On reflection, the set of extensions that an extension depends on is
obviously a property of the extension, which means it ought to be
specified in the extension's control file, not in the CREATE EXTENSION
command. So now I'm thinking something like
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
That said, we should do something about ALTER EXTENSION SET SCHEMA and
the relocatable property. I'm thinking that an extension stops being
relocatable as soon as any of its reverse dependencies (all the tree) is
not relocatable.
If you're
On Feb 7, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
On reflection, the set of extensions that an extension depends on is
obviously a property of the extension, which means it ought to be
specified in the extension's control file, not in the CREATE EXTENSION
command. So now I'm thinking something
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
If you're worried about that, then it's questionable whether ALTER
EXTENSION SET SCHEMA makes sense at all, ever. I don't see any reason
to think that an extension is more fragile for this purpose than any
other random SQL dependencies. Also, an extension
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
If you're worried about that, then it's questionable whether ALTER
EXTENSION SET SCHEMA makes sense at all, ever. I don't see any reason
to think that an extension is more fragile for this purpose than any
15 matches
Mail list logo
