| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: search_path vs extensions |
| Date: | 2009-05-28 18:40:31 |
| Message-ID: | 14719.1243536031@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> On 5/28/09 12:36 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> That really seems exactly to be what we're proposing with pre_ and post_
>> search_path components: don't change current meaning of search_path,
>> just give DBAs better ways to manage it. And now that you're leaning
>> towards a search_path suffix, don't you want a prefix too?
> Yeah, I thought about a prefix, but I couldn't come up with a way it
> would be useful, and I could come up with a lot of scenarios where it
> would be a big foot-gun.
Also, a search path prefix is going to create curious interactions with
the default creation schema. A suffix seems much less dangerous in that
respect.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-05-28 18:41:47 | Re: sun blade 1000 donation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-28 18:38:29 | Re: search_path vs extensions |