From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gunnlaugur Thor Briem <gunnlaugur(at)gmail(dot)com>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: unaccent(text) fails depending on search_path (WAS: pg_upgrade fails saying function unaccent(text) doesn't exist) |
Date: | 2018-09-07 22:32:47 |
Message-ID: | 20180907223247.GH28811@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 06:37:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> [ redirecting to pgsql-hackers ]
>
> I wrote:
> > Gunnlaugur Thor Briem <gunnlaugur(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> SET search_path = "$user"; SELECT public.unaccent('foo');
> >> SET
> >> ERROR: text search dictionary "unaccent" does not exist
>
> > Meh. I think we need the attached, or something just about like it.
> >
> > It's barely possible that there's somebody out there who's relying on
> > setting the search path to allow choosing among multiple "unaccent"
> > dictionaries. But there are way more people whose functions are
> > broken due to the recent search-path-tightening changes.
>
> Here's a slightly more efficient version.
If we are going down this route, is there any thought of handling
earchdistance the same way?
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180330205229.GS8476@momjian.us
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-09-07 22:43:52 | Re: unaccent(text) fails depending on search_path (WAS: pg_upgrade fails saying function unaccent(text) doesn't exist) |
Previous Message | David Steele | 2018-09-07 22:22:43 | Re: pgbackrest when data/base is symlinked to another volume |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-09-07 22:37:15 | StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-09-07 22:16:28 | Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |