Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: search_path vs extensions

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions
Date: 2009-05-29 16:23:26
Message-ID: C3A586B5-BDE9-4FAF-8339-C23D6C4BD286@kineticode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On May 29, 2009, at 3:38 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:

> PS: we still have to provide users with easy tools to (dynamically)  
> manage search_path, don't we?
> (I prefer not to start the search_path management tool ideas right  
> here).

Yes, we do, and that's what at least half this thread is about.  
Whether or not such tools are put to use for extensions support is a  
separate issue, but both need addressing, I think.

Best,

Davdi

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin FieldDate: 2009-05-29 16:43:48
Subject: Re: plperl error format vs plpgsql error format vs pgTAP
Previous:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2009-05-29 16:22:03
Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group