Sep 24, 2020, 8:13 AM by tshel...@gmail.com: >> >> On 9/23/20 11:51 AM, >> tutilu...@tutanota.com>> wrote: >> > > Huh? A schema is just a name space, why does it matter how the > > extension chooses to define it? I mean you could have number of > > permutations of postgis. > > > > I'm saying that PostGIS has a bug due to incorrectly constructed > > internal queries which makes it impossible to properly name the schema > > where PostGIS is to reside, causing my database to look very ugly when > > it has to say "postgis" instead of "PostGIS" for PostGIS's schema. And > > that was an example of how sloppy/bad third-party things always are, and > > is one reason why I don't like it when I have to rely on "extensions". > > > Ummmm? I have PostGIS installed in my core app schema, in part because at > the time I didn't know what I was doing. Better to have been in public... > > You may also want to look at comparable ANSI (standards based) database > products (Oracle for example) when it comes to the use of case in naming > conventions. Different products handle things in different ways. > > You may want to google around the issue, for example > > https://postgis.net/2017/11/07/tip-move-postgis-schema/> for moving schemas. > > You may want to do some research on where PostGIS comes from. It could never > have been developed as a core part of Postgres, so the fact that products > like PostGIS are so domain specific. > The fact that the Postgesql extension system is so flexible and robust was > probably a key factor in the choice it's choice in the development of PostGIS. > It's painfully clear that people don't read anymore. I don't know what to say other than: "This has nothing to do with what I said."
> My suggestion is 'live with it'. > And my point was that third-party extensions always are sloppy/bad in some way, and what I described was a perfect example of such a thing. It's insulting beyond words to be forced to make an ugly schema called "postgis" just because of a BUG in PostGIS, when all my other schemas are named properly and PostgreSQL has ZERO problems calling it "PostGIS" -- it's PostGIS that has a BUG in it that makes it impossible to use if you name it properly. > Or, move to a product that suits your use cases / desires better > Always the same thing. The slightest criticism, no matter how warranted, always results in: "Fine. Go somewhere else. Use something else." Never: "Oh, right. Sorry, but we always used lowercase ourselves and therefore didn't consider this. In retrospect, it's an embarrassing mistake! We'll fix it in the next release. Thanks for pointing that out." > , But, good luck finding another open source "free" (or any) product with the > functionality, robusiness and performance of PostGIS / Postgresql. > I didn't say there is, nor do I think so. It wasn't my point at all...
