Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
