[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       pgsql-hackers
Subject:    Re: [HACKERS] Crash in pgCrypto?
From:       Tom Lane <tgl () sss ! pgh ! pa ! us>
Date:       2008-06-17 1:43:37
Message-ID: 11567.1213667017 () sss ! pgh ! pa ! us
[Download RAW message or body]

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> David Fetter wrote:
>> Maybe I'm missing something big, but I don't quite see what
>> constitutes "proper" that doesn't involve the module's having at least
>> one schema to itself.

> ISTM that "uninstall foomodule" will be a whole lot nicer.

Right.  We have all the mechanism we need in the form of the dependency
stuff: you just make everything in the module auto-depend on the module
object.  People who want to put their modules into private schemas can
do it, but they won't be forced to.

In any case, trying to define a module as a schema doesn't help at all
to solve the hard problem, which is how to get this stuff to play nice
with pg_dump.  I think that the agreed-on solution was that pg_dump
should emit some kind of "LOAD MODULE foo" command, and *not* dump any
of the individual objects in the module.  We can't have that if we try
to equate modules with schemas instead of making them a new kind of
object.

			regards, tom lane

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]