On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 5:32 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> But I don't look at the search_path as "just another GUC" when it comes
> to executing a function. The source of the initial value of search_path
> is more like the IMMUTABLE marker.
I mean I agree and I disagree.
Philosophically, I agree. Most functions are written with some
particular search_path in mind; the author imagines that the function
will be executed with, well, probably whatever search path the author
typically uses themselves. Now and then, someone may write a function
that's intended to run with various different search paths, e.g.
anything of the form customer_XXXX, pg_catalog, pg_temp. I think that
is a real thing that people actually do, intentionally varying the
search_path with the idea of rebinding some references. However, cases
where somebody sincerely intends for the caller to be able to make +
or || mean something different from normal probably do not exist in
practice. So, if we were designing a system from scratch, then I would
recommend against making search_path a GUC, because it's clearly
shouldn't behave in the same way as a session property like
debug_print_plan or enable_seqscan, where you could want to run the
same code with various values.
But practically, I disagree. As things stand today, search_path *is* a
GUC that dynamically changes the run-time properties of a session, and
your proposed patch wouldn't change that. What it would do is layer
another mechanism on top of that which, IMHO, makes something that is
already complicated and error-prone even more complicated. If we
wanted to really make seach_path behave like a property of the code
rather than the session, I think we'd need to change quite a bit more
stuff, and the price of that in terms of backward-compatibility might
be higher than we'd be willing to pay, but if, hypothetically, we
decided to pay that price, then at the end of it search_path as a GUC
would be gone, and we'd have one way of managing sarch_path that is
different from the one we have now.
But with the patch as you have proposed it that's not what happens. We
just end up with two interconnected mechanisms for managing what,
right now, is managed by a single mechanism. That mechanism is (and I
think we probably mostly all agree on this) bad. Like really really
bad. But having more than one mechanism, to me, still seems worse.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
