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
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
