Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes:
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>> For my part, I'd still prefer to have those go into a different schema
>> than into pg_catalog. Perhaps that's overkill but I really do like the
>> seperation of system tables from extensions which can be added and
>> removed..
>
> This was discussed previously. It's a bad idea. It's very tempting but
> it doesn't scale. Then every user needs to know every schema for every
> extension they might want to use.
+1
Your description of how bad this idea is is the best I've read I think:
> It's exactly equivalent to the very common pattern of sysadmins
> installing things into /usr/local/apache, /usr/local/kde,
> /usr/local/gnome, /usr/local/pgsql, etc. Then every user needs a
> mile-long PATH, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, JAVACLASSPATH, etc. And every user
> has a slightly different ordering and slightly different subset of
> directories in their paths resulting in different behaviours and
> errors for each user. A correctly integrated package will use standard
> locations and then users can simply refer to the standard locations
> and find what's been installed. It would be ok to have a schema for
> all extensions separately from the core, but it can't be a schema for
> each extension or else we might as well not have the extension
> mechanism at all. Users would still need to "install" the extension by
> editing their config to refer to it.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support