On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 19:34, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "scott.marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
> > > Is it possible to remove the implicit search path of pg_catalog from a
> > > psql session without it breaking lots of stuff?
> > Do you consider "+", "count()", etc to be important stuff?
> Me, hardly ever use them :-) So I can assume that removing the implicit
> pg_catalog from the search path is a "bad thing."
From the search_path certainly -- but we can we teach the difference
between implicit and explicit to the *is_visible functions?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2003-10-29 03:36:00|
|Subject: Re: pg_ctl reports succes when start fails|
|Previous:||From: John DeSoi||Date: 2003-10-29 02:38:29|
|Subject: Re: shared memory on OS X - 7.4beta4 |
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: kedar kompalli||Date: 2003-10-29 12:49:04|
|Subject: installation and configuration of postgresql|
|Previous:||From: Christopher Kings-Lynne||Date: 2003-10-29 01:53:48|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autocomplete <TAB> on Postgres7.4beta5 not working?|