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