>>> adrian.kla...@aklaver.com wrote: >>> >>> set search_path = ''; >>> show search_path ; >>> search_path >>> ------------- >>> "" >> pavel.steh...@gmail.com >> >> ...But still in this case, there is pg_catalog in search path. > > Yes but from OP: > > « I've confirmed that even a superuser cannot create objects in a "special" > schema like "pg_catalog" or "pg_toast". So this gives me a workaround to the > limitation that I cannot force the use of fully qualified names by setting a > null search_path: I could set the attribute of my subprogram to "pg_catalog". > » > > So Bryn Llewellyn does not seem to be concerned about that.
Thanks, all, for your replies. I'd assumed that the arguments of "set search_path" had to be SQL names. so I tried "". But that caused an error. I didn't try the ordinary empty string because I'd assumed that, as an illegal SQL name, it would be illegal in "set search_path". Hmm... I'm slightly troubled by "works right now": > x...@thebuild.com wrote: > > You use the empty string, rather than NULL... it works right now: But because you experts all recommend it, I'll go with it. It's more expressive of what I mean than is using "pg_catalog". (I'm assuming that having such an unwritable schema inevitably on the search_path is simply an entirely benign benefit. But it could give a strange message to the reader in my use case.)
