| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch |
| Date: | 2009-01-16 03:50:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20090116035022.GV4656@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Read the documentation for search_path: if pg_catalog isn't explicitly
> mentioned, we add it implicitly. This is mainly because it would be
> contrary to SQL spec (and pretty useless to boot) to not recognize the
> standard functions and operators. But beyond that hack, there is no
> mechanism other than search_path that determines what's visible or not.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I was completely oblivious to this. I
think I spoke a little too quickly and phrased it poorly.
It would be nice for an administrator to be able to implicitly add other
schemas to the search_path, primairly for functions but possibly other
things, because that way add-on modules like PostGIS could look more
like they're just part of PG. Another option might be to add things to
pg_catalog, but I suspect that's frowned upon with good reason.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-16 03:58:12 | Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-16 03:42:21 | Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch |