Seems the night has been providing lots of thoughs :)
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Sure. I think that having better search path management would be a
> wonderful thing; it would encourage people to use schema more in general.
> However, that doesn't mean that I think it should be part of the extensions
> design, or even a gating factor.
First, this thread allowed us to go from:
"we don't know where to install extensions"
"we all agree that a specific pg_extension schema is a good idea, as
soon as user is free not to use it at extension install time".
So you see, search_path and extensions are related and thinking about
their relationship will help design the latter.
> search_path_suffix = 'pg_modules, information_schema'
> search_path = 'main,web,accounts'
> ... would mean that any object named would search in
> main,web,accounts,pg_modules,information_schema. This would be one way to
> solve the issue of having extra schema for extensions or other "utilities"
> in applications.
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?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2009-05-28 08:08:50|
|Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions|
|Previous:||From: Markus Wanner||Date: 2009-05-28 07:25:18|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up|