On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:37:41AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > * Sandro Santilli (s...@kbt.io) wrote: > > On pgsql-hackers we only want to find a future-proof way to "package > > existing objects into an extension". If the syntax > > `CREATE EXTENSION <extname> FROM UNPACKAGED` > > has gone, would it be ok for just: > > `CREATE EXTENSION <extname>` > > to intercept unpackaged objects and package them ? > > No. The reason it was removed is because it's not going to be safe to > do when we have trusted extensions.
This part is not clear to me. You're _assuming_ that the unpackaged--xxx will not make checks, so you _drop_ support for it ? Can't the normal extension script also be unsafe for some reason ? Or can't the unpackaged-xxx script be made safe by the publishers ? Or, as a last resort.. can't you just mark postgis as UNSAFE and still require superuser, which would give us the same experience as before ? > Perhaps it would be possible to > figure out a way to make it safe, but the reason FROM UNPACKAGED was > created and existed doesn't apply any more. Wasn't the reason of existance the ability for people to switch from non-extension to extension based installs ? > That PostGIS has been using > it for something else entirely is unfortunate, but the way to address > what PostGIS needs is to talk about that, not talk about how this ugly > hack used to work and doesn't any more. Seriously, what was FROM UNPACKAGED meant to be used for ? --strk;
