Re: Seems to be impossible to set a NULL search_path

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bryn Llewellyn <bryn(at)yugabyte(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general list <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Seems to be impossible to set a NULL search_path
Date: 2022-07-07 03:20:23
Message-ID: CAKFQuwYaYEe0K+Cn1nOZWvfMgAFtE+9iM99h2eiH92YtB8K-jQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 1:47 PM Bryn Llewellyn <bryn(at)yugabyte(dot)com> wrote:

>
> It seems that the wording is wrong here:
>
> « The value for search_path must be a comma-separated list of schema
> names. »
>
> It's schema identifiers—and not schema names. Yes?
>
>
To add further clarity (or confusion) there is also set_config(...)

postgres=# select set_config('search_path','a,"b",testSchema',false);
set_config
------------------
a,"b",testSchema
(1 row)

postgres=# select current_schemas(true);
current_schemas
-------------------------
{pg_catalog,testschema}
(1 row)

As for "schema identifiers" vs. "schema names" - they both seem equally
wrong. The list can very much contain sequences of characters that when
interpreted as an identifier and looked for in the pg_namespace catalog do
not find a matching entry and are therefore by definition not the name of
any known schema in that database.

Besides, I hazard to guess how many times we write "table name" and "column
name" in the documentation when your argument is that "table identifier"
and "column identifier" is the correct choice. No, rather "name" and
"identifier" in the context of database objects are known to mean the same
thing - the alphabetic name of the object.

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bryn Llewellyn 2022-07-07 03:47:19 Re: Seems to be impossible to set a NULL search_path
Previous Message Bryn Llewellyn 2022-07-06 22:15:39 Re: Seems to be impossible to set a NULL search_path