Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes:
> On 5/28/09 12:36 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> That really seems exactly to be what we're proposing with pre_ and post_
>> search_path components: don't change current meaning of search_path,
>> just give DBAs better ways to manage it. And now that you're leaning
>> towards a search_path suffix, don't you want a prefix too?
> Yeah, I thought about a prefix, but I couldn't come up with a way it
> would be useful, and I could come up with a lot of scenarios where it
> would be a big foot-gun.
Also, a search path prefix is going to create curious interactions with
the default creation schema. A suffix seems much less dangerous in that
respect.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
