"Dickson S. Guedes" <lis...@guedesoft.net> writes: > 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?
Hm, just rename the standard scenario's tables to pgbench_accounts etc? Sure, but then we break custom pgbench scripts that happen to be using the default tables for their own purposes. There's no free lunch. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers