Re: search_path vs extensions

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions
Date: 2009-05-27 21:00:41
Message-ID: 4A1DA9F9.1020003@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Gierth wrote:
> Splitting up search_path is something I've been thinking about for a
> while (and threw out on IRC as a suggestion, which is where Dimitri
> got it); it was based on actual experience running an app that set the
> search path in the connection parameters in order to select which of
> several different schemas to use for part (not all) of the data. When
> setting search_path this way, there is no way to set only part of it;
> the client-supplied value overrides everything.
>
> Obviously there are other possible solutions, but pretending there
> isn't a problem will get nowhere.
>
> (Setting the search path using a function or sql statement _after_
> connecting was not an option; it would have confused the connection
> persistance layer, which needed different parameters to tell the
> connections apart.)
>

Another way of handling this might be to provide for prepending or
appending to the search path (or even for removing items from it).

examples - something like:

alter database foo set search_path = '+bar, baz'; -- append
alter database foo set search_path = 'bar, baz+'; -- prepend

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-05-27 21:04:10 Re: search_path vs extensions
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-05-27 21:00:21 Re: [PATCH] plpythonu datatype conversion improvements