Re: [GENERAL] Temporary tables and miscellaneous schemas

From: Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, btober(at)seaworthysys(dot)com
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Temporary tables and miscellaneous schemas
Date: 2003-12-21 06:52:36
Message-ID: 20031221065236.GA93663@perrin.nxad.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

> > Because that's what I originally did and you shot it down as a bad
> > patch because you thought it wasn't in PostgreSQL's interest to filter
> > what we showed the user.
>
> I'm still unconvinced on that, actually ... but it beats the heck out of
> filtering everything not in your search path ...

Well, for the sake of clarifying your opinion, would you be in favor
of a set of rules for the information_schema.* views that would update
the pg_catalog.* tables, as the pg_catalog.* tables are an
implementation detail? That's going to the extreme, but where do you
see the middle ground in terms of simplifying a user experience and
hiding users from PostgreSQL's nuts and bolts?

Hiding pg_temp_* schemas seems like a good idea to me given temp
objects are visible in every schema and the path of a temp object is
subject to change... an overly diligent admin might try and hard code
in the schema of a temp object only to find that path not portable,
thus exposing that information would strike me as a liability and not
an asset. And then there's the idea of providing an admin-mode that
exposes all of the implementation details (Hint, hint. I'd do the leg
work on this if it wouldn't be categorically dropped at the front
door). Anyway, I know we've covered this in the archives so I'll drop
it.

As an FYI, I just updated to an Opteron box and have been enjoying a
little over 1500 temp schemas and a paltry ~30 non-temp schemas.
Getting this patch in would be oh so very appreciated as maintaining
local copies of psql(1) is getting old. I know it's not my decision
to make, but I'd settle and shut up if there was an indirect proof for
why this shouldn't be included as a patch (ie, a valid usecase for an
admin or programmer who would need to see any or all of the pg_temp_*
schemas without using that data to extract more bits from the
pg_catalogs. If they know how to go through the catalogs, why do they
need \dn to display the temp schemas?).

As always, --Sean

--
Sean Chittenden

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message ezra epstein 2003-12-21 08:14:24 FEATURE REQUEST: let arrays support null values.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-12-21 06:03:00 Re: [GENERAL] Temporary tables and miscellaneous schemas

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zach Irmen 2003-12-21 08:22:49 Re: psql \i handling ~ in specified file name
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-12-21 06:03:00 Re: [GENERAL] Temporary tables and miscellaneous schemas