Re: FW: Patch for current_schemas to optionally include implicit

Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:

http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches

I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> > Sent: 14 June 2002 06:25
> > To: Bruce Momjian
> > Cc: Dave Page; pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCHES] FW: Patch for current_schemas to
> > optionally include implicit
> >
> >
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied
> > patches list at:
> > > http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
> > > I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
> >
> > I believe I objected to that one... we need something like it
> > but Dave's first cut wasn't right.
>
> Second cut attached. This one just adds a boolean option to the existing
> function to indicate that implicit schemas are to be included (or not).
> I remembered the docs as well this time :-)
>
> BTW: Tom, I noticed that temp schemas get added to the path before
> pg_catalog - I would have expected pg_catalog to always be first or have
> I missed something obvious?
>
> Regards, Dave.

Content-Description: current_schemas.patch

[ Attachment, skipping... ]

>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026