Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not?
Date: 2003-10-22 13:28:42
Message-ID: 10867.1066829322@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> writes:
> On Wednesday 22 October 2003 06:55, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> The idea is that you give each function its own schema search path at
>> creation time, and that path applies to that function for the rest of its
>> life. Then that function would be immune to schema path changes later on.

> But surely that would mean I couldn't do ...

Certainly you can invent scenarios where letting the search path vary
from call to call is useful, but the question is which behavior is
*more* useful. I think it's becoming clear that having a predictable
search path is usually what a function author will want.

It would probably be a good idea to allow the function's search path to
be explicitly specified as a clause of CREATE FUNCTION (otherwise it
will be a headache for pg_dump). So we could allow both viewpoints,
if there is a way to explicitly say "don't force any search path".
Perhaps specifying an empty path could mean that. But I think the
default should be to adopt the current search path (at the time of
CREATE FUNCTION) as the function's permanent path.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-10-22 13:44:30 Re: integer ceiling in LIMIT and OFFSET
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2003-10-22 12:34:56 Re: integer ceiling in LIMIT and OFFSET