Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>>> Then again, why is the behavior of schema-qualifying absolutely
>>> everything even desirable?
>> Well, someone could create a collation in another schema with the same
>> name as a system collation and the command would become ambiguous.
> Hmm, good point. I guess we don't worry much about this with pg_dump
> because we assume that we're restoring into an empty database (and if
> not, the user gets to keep both pieces). You're applying a higher
> standard here.
Robert, that's just horsepucky. pg_dump is very careful about schemas.
It's also careful to not schema-qualify names unnecessarily, which is an
intentional tradeoff to improve readability of the dump --- at the cost
that the dump might break if restored into a nonempty database with
conflicting objects. In the case of data passed to event triggers,
there's a different tradeoff to be made: people will probably value
consistency over readability, so always-qualify is probably the right
choice here. But in neither case are we being sloppy.
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
