Andres Freund writes:
> On 2014-04-04 17:24:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe not many, but pg_dump itself certainly can try to do that.
>> (Most of the time, pg_dump won't dump things in pg_catalog, but there
>> are exceptions, eg --binary-upgrade dump of an extension containing
>> objects in pg
On 2014-04-04 17:24:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2014-04-04 14:56:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I don't find that to be a good idea at all. pg_dump is probably not the
> >> only code that believes it can select a creation target with search_path,
> >> no matter what t
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2014-04-04 14:56:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't find that to be a good idea at all. pg_dump is probably not the
>> only code that believes it can select a creation target with search_path,
>> no matter what that target is.
> Sure, but how many of those are trying
On 2014-04-04 14:56:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I was actually suggesting that the only way to create something in
> > pg_catalog is to do it with a explicit schema qualified id. I realize
> > that that's not something backpatchable...
>
> I don't find that to be a good
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2014-04-04 14:32:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm. Seems pretty grotty, but it'd at least fix pg_dump's problem,
>> since pg_dump's lists are always "foo, pg_catalog" with no third
>> schema mentioned. I think what we'd actually need is to say
>> "pg_catalog cannot be s
On 2014-04-04 14:32:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I was thinking - but not saying explicitly - of rigging things so that
> > pg_catalog is ignored when searching for the target schema for object
> > creation unless explicitly specified. So if there's no other schema in
> >
Andres Freund writes:
> I was thinking - but not saying explicitly - of rigging things so that
> pg_catalog is ignored when searching for the target schema for object
> creation unless explicitly specified. So if there's no other schema in
> the search path you'd get the error about no "no schema
Josh Berkus writes:
> No, if we're fixing this, then we should have a separate
> "creation_target_schema" GUC. The fact that the only way to designate
> creation target schema was to put it at the start of the search path has
> *always* been a problem, since 7.3.
Well, if we were doing this in
On 2014-04-04 14:13:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > How about simply refusing to create anything in pg_catalog unless it's
> > explicitly schema qualified? Looks a bit nasty to implement but doable?
>
> That's what happens already. The point is to do better. What we want
> for pg_dump's case is to
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2014-04-04 13:58:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm ... doesn't fix the problem for existing dump files, which are going to
>> say "search_path = foo, pg_catalog". However, we could modify it a bit,
>> so that the marker is put on schemas that can be skipped if missing for
On 2014-04-04 13:58:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I wonder if we could extend the search path syntax to specify whether a
> > schema should be used for creation of objects or not. Sounds somewhat
> > nasty, but I don't really have a better idea :(. Something like
> > search
On 04/04/2014 01:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I wonder if we could extend the search path syntax to specify whether a
> schema should be used for creation of objects or not. Sounds somewhat
> nasty, but I don't really have a better idea :(. Something like
> search_patch=public,!pg_catalog.
No, if
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2014-04-04 13:33:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It strikes me that the real issue here is that the analogy to PATH is
>> fine for search_path's role as a *search* path, but it's not so good for
>> determining the creation target schema. I wonder if we should further
>> re
Hi,
On 2014-04-04 13:33:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> It strikes me that the real issue here is that the analogy to PATH is
> fine for search_path's role as a *search* path, but it's not so good for
> determining the creation target schema. I wonder if we should further
> redefine things so that th
Back in 9.2 (commit 880bfc328) we decided that nonexistent schemas listed
in search_path should be silently ignored, reasoning by analogy with Unix
PATH settings where nonexistent directories in the path don't result in
error reports. This remains imperfect though, cf commit 15386281a and
the simi
15 matches
Mail list logo
