Re: FW: Patch for current_schemas to optionally include implicit - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Dave Page
Subject Re: FW: Patch for current_schemas to optionally include implicit
Date
Msg-id D85C66DA59BA044EB96AB9683819CF61015393@dogbert.vale-housing.co.uk
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: FW: Patch for current_schemas to optionally include implicit  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: FW: Patch for current_schemas to optionally include implicit  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: FW: Patch for current_schemas to optionally include implicit  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: FW: Patch for current_schemas to optionally include implicit  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> Sent: 14 June 2002 06:25
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: Dave Page; pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] FW: Patch for current_schemas to
> optionally include implicit
>
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied
> patches list at:
> >     http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
> > I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
>
> I believe I objected to that one... we need something like it
> but Dave's first cut wasn't right.

Second cut attached. This one just adds a boolean option to the existing
function to indicate that implicit schemas are to be included (or not).
I remembered the docs as well this time :-)

BTW: Tom, I noticed that temp schemas get added to the path before
pg_catalog - I would have expected pg_catalog to always be first or have
I missed something obvious?

Regards, Dave.

Attachment

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: guc.c and postgresql.conf.sample constistency checker
Next
From: "Dave Page"
Date:
Subject: CREATE LANGUAGE/pg_language docs