On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, I don't put any stock in the idea that it's important for existing
> module .sql files to be usable as-is as extension definition files. If
> it happens to fall out that way, fine, but we shouldn't give up anything
> else to get that.
I agree, but I don't think we have to lose anything.
> Letting extension files be directly sourceable in
> psql is probably worth a bit more, but I'm not sure how much. The
> argument that forgetting to include a magic source_path command would
> make CREATE EXTENSION behave surprisingly seems to have a good deal of
> merit though, certainly enough to justify having CREATE EXTENSION take
> care of that internally if at all possible.
Yes.
The other question I have, though, is how important is it to have extensions live in a particular schema since there
seemsto be no advantage to doing so. With the current patch, I can put extension "foo" in schema "bar", but I can't put
anyother extension named "foo" in any other schema. It's in schema "bar" but is at the same time global. That doesn't
makemuch sense to me.
Best,
David