Re: search_path vs extensions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: search_path vs extensions
Date
Msg-id 4A1EE6CE.1010807@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: search_path vs extensions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: search_path vs extensions  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>   
>> It also seems to me that we're getting seriously sidetracked from the
>> dependency-tracking part of this project which seems to me to be a
>> much deeper and more fundamental issue.
>>     
>
> I thought that part was a pretty simple problem, actually.  Have an
> object representing the module, make sure each component object in the
> module has an AUTO dependency link to that object.  Where's the
> difficulty?
>
>             
>   

Well, yes. Honestly, I think all this search_path stuff is a red 
herring. We are once again in danger of over-designing this instead of 
doing the simple thing first (namely, don't worry about the search_path).

cheers

andrew


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: plperl error format vs plpgsql error format vs pgTAP
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions