On 12/07/2010 11:13 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> There's a difference between whether an extension as such is considered
>> to belong to a schema and whether its contained objects do. We can't
>> really avoid the fact that functions, operators, etc must be assigned to
>> some particular schema. It seems not particularly important that
>> extension names be schema-qualified, though --- the use-case for having
>> two different extensions named "foo" installed simultaneously seems
>> pretty darn small. On the other hand, if we were enforcing that all
>> objects contained in an extension belong to the same schema, it'd make
>> logistical sense to consider that the extension itself belongs to that
>> schema as well. But last I heard we didn't want to enforce such a
>> restriction.
> Why not? This feature seems to be pretty heavily designed around the
> assumption that everything's going to live in one schema, so is there
> any harm in making that explicit?
>
In previous discussions IIRC the consensus was that we should not force
that on either Extension writers or users.
cheers
andrew