Re: Another thought about search_path semantics

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Another thought about search_path semantics
Date: 2014-04-04 21:24:00
Message-ID: 27583.1396646640@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-04-04 14:56:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't find that to be a good idea at all. pg_dump is probably not the
>> only code that believes it can select a creation target with search_path,
>> no matter what that target is.

> Sure, but how many of those are trying to put things in pg_catalog?

Maybe not many, but pg_dump itself certainly can try to do that.
(Most of the time, pg_dump won't dump things in pg_catalog, but there
are exceptions, eg --binary-upgrade dump of an extension containing
objects in pg_catalog.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-04-04 21:26:18 Re: Another thought about search_path semantics
Previous Message Claudio Freire 2014-04-04 21:23:49 Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)