Re: Another thought about search_path semantics

On 2014-04-04 17:24:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2014-04-04 14:56:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I don't find that to be a good idea at all. pg_dump is probably not the
> >> only code that believes it can select a creation target with search_path,
> >> no matter what that target is.
>
> > Sure, but how many of those are trying to put things in pg_catalog?
>
> Maybe not many, but pg_dump itself certainly can try to do that.
> (Most of the time, pg_dump won't dump things in pg_catalog, but there
> are exceptions, eg --binary-upgrade dump of an extension containing
> objects in pg_catalog.)

If we're not backpatching, fixing that seems easy enough? pg_upgrade
definitely needs the pg_dump around, so that should be fine.

I don't like my own suggestion, which isn't a good sign, but I haven't
heard anything I like more :(.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services