Em Qua, 2009-05-06 às 13:49 -0700, Joshua D. Drake escreveu: > On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 17:42 -0300, Dickson S. Guedes wrote: > > Em Qua, 2009-05-06 às 16:27 -0400, Tom Lane escreveu: > > > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: > > > > I think it would be better that the schema is specified on the command > > > > line. > > > > > > Surely that's more work than the issue is worth. It's also inconvenient > > > to use, because you'd have to remember to give the switch both for the > > > -i run and the normal test runs. > > > > So, in my opinion, the Joshua alternative is a good little change that > > let "pgbench" runs in a more flexible way. > > > > But, there is the possibility that someone are using an automated script > > that could be broken by this change? > > Only if the role pgbench is using as an explicit search_path set.
So, in a way to avoid the scenario where a ROLE has an explicit search_path set to schemes that already have tables named same as the pgbench's tables, doesn't makes sense also create a "pgbench_" suffix for them? -- Dickson S. Guedes mail/xmpp: gue...@guedesoft.net - skype: guediz http://guedesoft.net - http://planeta.postgresql.org.br
signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente
