On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 08:05:33PM +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > As I said earlier I doubt "pop" or "delete" is ever going to actually > be what you want. I suspect you're far more likely to want to restore > it to what it was before you started altering it. > > As support I'll point out this is what our C api has. There's no short > cut to strip out a single element of the path but the normal calling > pattern is to set aside a copy of the old path, add modify it in some > way -- often adding a schema to the head -- then restore the old path.
Without reading much of what's been said here (I've read maybe ten of the posts in this thread) I'll say it sounds a lot like lexical closures are needed. Code is free to define and use generally use whatever is in their closure, but can't affect what's outside it unless explicitly granted. I saw these mentioned in another post by David Wheeler[1] but my client says it wasn't directly responded to. He calls it "lexical scoping" but I think closing over the environment seems more suitable---mainly because it'll "go wrong" less often in the presence of functions defined as "security definer". -- Sam http://samason.me.uk/ [1] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/5a1fe6b1-9857-454c-a385-ba061ded3...@kineticode.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
