Re: Another thought about search_path semantics

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-04-04 14:32:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm. Seems pretty grotty, but it'd at least fix pg_dump's problem,
>> since pg_dump's lists are always "foo, pg_catalog" with no third
>> schema mentioned. I think what we'd actually need is to say
>> "pg_catalog cannot be selected as the creation target unless it's
>> the *first* entry in the search_path list".

> I was actually suggesting that the only way to create something in
> pg_catalog is to do it with a explicit schema qualified id. I realize
> that that's not something backpatchable...

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.

As for back-patchability, I was initially thinking of only fixing this in
HEAD. If the behavior change is small enough, maybe we could get away
with back-patching 9.2 and 9.3; but I don't think we should start with
the assumption that we must do that.

regards, tom lane