From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patch for current_schemas to optionally include implicit schemas |
Date: | 2002-06-09 20:16:15 |
Message-ID: | D85C66DA59BA044EB96AB9683819CF61015364@dogbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: 09 June 2002 20:46
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: Patch for current_schemas to optionally include
> implicit schemas
>
>
> "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> > Attached is the result which seems to work OK here. The existing
> > current_schemas() works as previously, & I have added
> > current_schemas(bool) which will return the full implicit/explicit
> > path if passed true or the explicit path is pass false.
>
> This patch will break the existing current_schemas() function
> AFAICS; the code will be testing a value that it wasn't
> passed, and getting a random result, so it's unclear which
> behavior you'd get.
Ahh, I was unaware of that - too used to VB & C# where booleans default
to false I suppose...
> Since current_schemas() isn't in any released code yet, it's
> not by any means set in stone. I'd be willing to simply
> change it to take a boolean parameter always. Comments anyone?
Fine with me.
Regards, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-06-10 01:19:24 | C&SRF API patch (was Re: [HACKERS] revised sample SRF C function; proposed SRF API) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-06-09 19:46:21 | Re: Patch for current_schemas to optionally include implicit schemas |