| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dickson S(dot) Guedes" <listas(at)guedesoft(dot)net> |
| Cc: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Patch to fix search_path defencies with pg_bench |
| Date: | 2009-05-06 21:13:27 |
| Message-ID: | 27949.1241644407@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Dickson S. Guedes" <listas(at)guedesoft(dot)net> writes:
> So, in a way to avoid the scenario where a ROLE has an explicit
> search_path set to schemes that already have tables named same as the
> pgbench's tables, doesn't makes sense also create a "pgbench_" suffix
> for them?
Hm, just rename the standard scenario's tables to pgbench_accounts
etc? Sure, but then we break custom pgbench scripts that happen
to be using the default tables for their own purposes. There's
no free lunch.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-06 21:43:00 | Re: conditional dropping of columns/constraints |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-06 21:04:57 | Re: Patch to fix search_path defencies with pg_bench |