On 02/04/2013 02:16 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> I wonder whether it'd not be a better idea to forbid specifying
>>> pg_catalog as the target schema for relocatable extensions.
>> But that would be important, I think.
> I understand the temptation to forbid pg_catalog as the target schema
> for relocatable extensions, or indeed for object creation in general.
> The fact that you can't, for example, go back and drop the objects
> later is a real downer. On the other hand, from a user perspective,
> it's really tempting to want to create certain extensions (adminpack,
> for example) in such a way that they appear to be "part of the system"
> rather than something that lives in a user schema. Had we some other
> solution to that problem (a second schema that behaves like pg_catalog
> but is empty by default and allows drops?) we might alleviate the need
> to put stuff in pg_catalog per se.
+1
Having a standard schema for extensions (say pg_extensions) is
something I have wanted multiple times.
Hannu
>