From: | Chris Gamache <cgg007(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Schema + User-Defined Data Type Indexing problems... |
Date: | 2004-06-10 14:34:54 |
Message-ID: | 20040610143454.13820.qmail@web13804.mail.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
--- Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> In practice I'm not sure that this is really a situation that we need to
> fret about, because using a datatype that isn't in your search path has
> got notational problems that are orders of magnitude worse than this
> one. The functions and operators that do something useful with the
> datatype would also have to be schema-qualified every time you use them.
> This is perhaps tolerable for functions but it's quite unpleasant for
> operators :-( You can't write
> select * from foo where my_uuid = 'xxx';
> instead
> select * from foo where my_uuid operator(my_schema.=) 'xxx';
> Yech. I think you'll end up putting uuid's schema in your search path
> before long anyway.
Right you are. I guess the moral of the story is that when using custom
datatypes, search_path is a required setting. I guess that is why the "public"
schema should be just that, completely accessable by any user with rights to
the DB. So, is the best-practice for the my_schema tables to reference the
user-defined datatype in the "public" schema?
CREATE TABLE my_schema.foo (uuid public.uniqueidentifier);
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Long | 2004-06-10 15:01:29 | Function returns error |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-06-10 14:09:53 | Re: Schema + User-Defined Data Type Indexing problems... |