Re: FW: Patch for current_schemas to optionally include implicit

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FW: Patch for current_schemas to optionally include implicit
Date: 2002-06-14 08:13:36
Message-ID: D85C66DA59BA044EB96AB9683819CF61015393@dogbert.vale-housing.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: 14 June 2002 06:25
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: Dave Page; pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] FW: Patch for current_schemas to
> optionally include implicit
>
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied
> patches list at:
> > http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
> > I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
>
> I believe I objected to that one... we need something like it
> but Dave's first cut wasn't right.

Second cut attached. This one just adds a boolean option to the existing
function to indicate that implicit schemas are to be included (or not).
I remembered the docs as well this time :-)

BTW: Tom, I noticed that temp schemas get added to the path before
pg_catalog - I would have expected pg_catalog to always be first or have
I missed something obvious?

Regards, Dave.

Attachment Content-Type Size
current_schemas.patch application/octet-stream 4.1 KB

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Sherry 2002-06-14 09:05:08 Re: Non-standard feature request
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-06-14 05:27:34 Re: guc.c and postgresql.conf.sample constistency checker