Re: [PATCH] SET search_path += octopus

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)toroid(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SET search_path += octopus
Date: 2020-10-20 18:32:51
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2020-10-20 14:16:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'd make that point against the whole proposal. There's nothing here that
>> can't be done with current_setting() + set_config().

> The one case where I can see SET support being useful even without
> config support is to allow for things like
> ALTER DATABASE somedatabase SET search_path += 'myapp';

Hmm, yeah, that's fractionally less easy to build from spare parts
than the plain SET case.

But I think there are more definitional hazards than you are letting
on. If there's no existing pg_db_role_setting entry, what value
exactly are we += 'ing onto, and why?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-10-20 18:33:58 Re: [PATCH] SET search_path += octopus
Previous Message Andres Freund 2020-10-20 18:23:37 Re: [PATCH] SET search_path += octopus