Keep in mind all contrib loads into public, and I don't remember any namespace conflict issues in the past.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > David Fetter wrote: > > > >> It's 982 functions as of this writing in CVS TIP's contrib. Do you > >> not get how wacky it is to have that many functions, none of which > >> have any collision-prevention built into their install scripts, in a > >> flat namespace? > >> > > > > We currently have 1695 standard functions. I don't see a problem with > > putting the extensions all in one schema, but I also don't see the > > point. > > > > > > I certainly don't see the point. But I do see a considerable point in > having extensions use their own schemas. The fact that we have 1695 > standard functions means we bear the responsibility of ensuring we don't > have name clashes among them. We should encourage extension authors by > example to use the namespace facility to relieve themselves of having to > ensure they don't clash not only with the standard functions but with > other extensions. IOW we should act with respect to the namespace for > extensions we distribute just like we would reasonably expect authors of > third party extensions to behave. > > For backwards compatibility, we might be well advised also to distribute > load scripts that put extension objects in the public schema as is done > now, but this should be a deprecated practice, IMNSHO. > > cheers > > andrew > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
