Re: [PATCH] SET search_path += octopus

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)toroid(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SET search_path += octopus
Date: 2020-10-29 01:29:30
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 2020-10-21 10:05:40 +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> > It seems to me that appending and incrementing using the same syntax
> > is a) confusing b) will be a limitation before long.
> I understand (a), but what sort of limitation do you foresee in (b)?
> Do you think both features should be implemented, but with a different
> syntax, or are you saying incrementing should not be implemented now?

I'm not sure, it just seems likely to me. Consider e.g. user defined
GUCs, where the type isn't yet known - just having type based dispatch
won't work well there.

For lists it also seems like you'd sometimes want prepend and sometimes

After pondering this in the back of my mind for a while, I think my gut
feeling about this still is that it's not worth implementing something
that doesn't work in postgresql.conf. The likelihood of ending up with
something that makes it hard to to eventually implement proper
postgresql.conf seems high.


Andres Freund

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuro Yamada 2020-10-29 01:34:44 Re: list of extended statistics on psql
Previous Message Tatsuro Yamada 2020-10-29 01:22:47 Re: list of extended statistics on psql