> -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 26 July 2004 17:28 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Vitaly Belman; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-support] Schemas causing problems :( > > This is really hackers stuff. > > > Dave Page wrote: > > > > > > I don't recall that discussion, but in general I think we should > > completely ignore the search path. Consider a function: > foo.dostuff(). > > The current code will return an empty schema prefix for a > search_path > > of public,bar,foo. What if there is also public.dostuff() > or bar.dostuff()? > > CREATE OR REPLACE could really screw up in that case... > > Some logic black holes... preliminarily public only.
Public only would work fine unless the user had an object in pg_catalog (not advisable, but when did that stop some ppl)... > > > > I also don't like the notion of treating public as some kind of > > special schema. From PostgreSQL's pov, its only special in > that it's > > there by default in template1 and the search_path. Other than that > > it's just another schema and should be treated as such. > > A grep showed that only FK has handles public special, all > other places go through pgDatabase::GetSchemaPrefix. Yeah - I thought you were implying treating public/pg_catalog differently when you said "It's obviously a mistake to suppress the schema when creating/modifying objects (unless public or pg_catalog)" > The correct overall behaviour seems > > - find the first schema in search_path that exists. > - If this is the schema in question, suppress it. OK. Still might result in broken reverse engineered SQL when used in a different session with a different search path of course. > - (ignore all following schema names, this was the main problem) Yup. > - If schema = pg_catalog, suppress it. Why? Any reverse engineered SQL will then incorrectly force objects into the first existing schema in the search_path, not pg_catalog. > Unfortunately, this search_path[i] = session_user is not > absolutely stable (schema or user name may change), but it > should be stable enough. > > Thoughts? Fully qualify everything. I think it's the only truly infallible way. Regards, Dave ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
