Re: search_path vs extensions

Tom,

> Well, we could certainly take that attitude and eliminate all this
> hassle ;-). However, I think that more-flexible search path handling
> might have other uses, so I don't see any reason not to think about it.

Sure. I think that having better search path management would be a
wonderful thing; it would encourage people to use schema more in general.

However, that doesn't mean that I think it should be part of the
extensions design, or even a gating factor.

For example, I could see these kinds of settings:

search_path_override (suset) would set all users to a specific search
path and raise an error at any set search_path attempts. This would be
mainly for secure applications.

search_path_suffix (suset) would append a certain set of schema to the
end of the search path regardless of what else the user put in, e.g.:

search_path_suffix = 'pg_modules, information_schema'
search_path = 'main,web,accounts'

... would mean that any object named would search in
main,web,accounts,pg_modules,information_schema. This would be one way
to solve the issue of having extra schema for extensions or other
"utilities" in applications.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com