On Sat, 2012-11-17 at 11:33 -0600, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 12:19:02 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 11:10 -0500, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> > > pg_temp-toindex.patch
> > > Puts pg_temp into the index of the docs.
> > But there is no object called pg_temp. It always pg_temp_NNNN
> > something. How should that be indexed?
> My thought is not to index the db object; it isn't
> particularly interesting to a user. Instead what's
> indexed is the token pg_temp, used when
> setting search_path. The utility of the token is
> explained in several places in the docs.
Actually, since this is the pg_temp alias for the search path, it is
appropriate. So committed as is.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2012-11-18 00:35:34|
|Subject: Re: Do we need so many hint bits?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-11-17 21:57:49|
|Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL|