út 1. 6. 2021 v 17:57 odesílatel Joel Jacobson <joel@compiler.org> napsal:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, at 14:41, Pavel Stehule wrote:
út 1. 6. 2021 v 13:13 odesílatel Joel Jacobson <joel@compiler.org> napsal:
I don't agree. If an extension provides functionality that is supposed to be used by all parts of the system, then I think the 'public' schema is a good choice.
I disagree
usual design of extensions (when schema is used) is
create schema ...
set schema ...
create table
create function
It is hard to say if it is good or it is bad.
Yes, it's hard, because it's a matter of taste.
Some prefer convenience, others clarity/safety.
Orafce using my own schema, and some things are in public (and some in pg_catalog), and people don't tell me, so it was a good choice.
I struggle to understand this last sentence.
So you orafce extension installs objects in both public and pg_catalog, right.
But what do you mean with "people don't tell me"?
And what "was a good choice"?
I learned programming on Orafce, and I didn't expect any success, so I designed it quickly, and the placing of old Orafce's functions to schemas is messy.
I am sure, if I started again, I would never use pg_catalog or public schema. I think if somebody uses schema, then it is good to use schema for all without exceptions - but it expects usage of search_path. I am not sure if using public schema or using search_path are two sides of one thing.