Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not?
Date: 2003-10-22 05:55:28
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0310220751460.29086-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:

> > Oh dear. We really need this function-specific schema path that the SQL
> > standard seems to talk about.
>
> What's that? How would it help?

The idea is that you give each function its own schema search path at
creation time, and that path applies to that function for the rest of its
life. Then that function would be immune to schema path changes later on.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2003-10-22 06:37:57 Re: 7.4 compatibility question
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-10-22 05:08:04 Re: 7.4 compatibility question