Re: Is there a way around function search_path killing SQL function inlining? - and backup / restore issue

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Regina Obe <lr(at)pcorp(dot)us>, 'Robert Haas' <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 'Andreas Karlsson' <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is there a way around function search_path killing SQL function inlining? - and backup / restore issue
Date: 2016-03-12 00:35:17
Message-ID: 56E36445.3050303@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3/10/16 3:29 PM, Regina Obe wrote:
> Take for example, I have tiger geocoder which relies on fuzzystrmatch. I have no idea where someone installs fuzzystrmatch so I can't schema qualify those calls. I use that dependent function to use to build an index on tables.

This is something I've thought about as well, and I think the real
problem is search_path just isn't the right way to handle this. I think
there needs to be some way to definitively reference something that's
part of an extension; a method that doesn't depend on whatever schema
the extension happens to be installed in.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-03-12 00:40:14 Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2016-03-12 00:30:50 Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)