From: "Regina Obe" <lr@pcorp.us>
To: <strk@kbt.io>
Cc: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	<pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <003001d8f4ae$402282c0$c0678840$@pcorp.us>
 <79300.1668052170@sss.pgh.pa.us> <004501d8f4bf$1213fba0$363bf2e0$@pcorp.us>
 <175298.1668101858@sss.pgh.pa.us> <004b01d8fef3$752dbf30$5f893d90$@pcorp.us>
 <20221215085234.rpjzlm7hmsmbanqv@c19>
In-Reply-To: <20221215085234.rpjzlm7hmsmbanqv@c19>
Subject: RE: Ability to reference other extensions by schema in extension
 scripts
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 08:04:22 -0500
Message-ID: <002001d91085$c10538e0$430faaa0$@pcorp.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: 
 AQFgXZxpr0yOB+9uS1Xwc1lFBKthIAHDgsBQATMNnPQCHx2JfQJ9+hXQAio5JzGvEl9twA==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/002001d91085%24c10538e0%24430faaa0%24%40pcorp.us>
Precedence: bulk

> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:24:19PM -0500, Regina Obe wrote:
> 
> > Here is first version of my patch using the @extschema:extensionname@
> > syntax you proposed.
> >
> > This patch includes:
> > 1) Changes to replace references of @extschema:extensionname@ with the
> > schema of the required extension
> > 2) Documentation for the feature
> > 3) Tests for the feature.
> >
> > There is one issue I thought about that is not addressed by this.
> >
> > If an extension is required by another extension and that required
> > extension schema is referenced in the extension scripts using the
> > @extschema:extensionname@ syntax, then ideally we should prevent the
> > required extension from being relocatable.  This would prevent a user
> > from accidentally moving the required extension, thus breaking the
> > dependent extensions.
> >
> > I didn't add that feature cause I wasn't sure if it was overstepping
> > the bounds of what should be done, or if we leave it up to the user to
> > just know better.
> 
> An alternative would be to forbid using @extschema:extensionname@ to
> reference relocatable extensions. DBA can toggle relocatability of an
extension
> to allow it to be referenced.
> 
> --strk;
That would be hard to do in a DbaaS setup and not many users know they can
fiddle with extension control files.
Plus those would get overwritten with upgrades.

In my case for example I have postgis_tiger_geocoder that relies on both
postgis and fuzzystrmatch.
I'd rather not have to explain to users how to fiddle with the
fuzzystrmatch.control file to make it not relocatable.

But I don't think anyone would mind if it's forced after install because
it's a rare thing for people to be moving extensions to different schemas
after install.  

Thanks,
Regina