Thread: Patch for current_schemas to optionally include implicit schemas

Following my discussion with Tom on -hackers a while ago about finding
the full schema search path, I decided to give it a go myself and
hopefully both learn something, and give Tom one less thing to do!

Attached is the result which seems to work OK here. The existing
current_schemas() works as previously, & I have added
current_schemas(bool) which will return the full implicit/explicit path
if passed true or the explicit path is pass false.

Thorough checking is advised in case I've done something nasty or missed
something I was unaware of (being my first venture into the backend
code) :-)

Regards, Dave.

"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes:
> Attached is the result which seems to work OK here. The existing
> current_schemas() works as previously, & I have added
> current_schemas(bool) which will return the full implicit/explicit path
> if passed true or the explicit path is pass false.

This patch will break the existing current_schemas() function AFAICS;
the code will be testing a value that it wasn't passed, and getting a
random result, so it's unclear which behavior you'd get.

Since current_schemas() isn't in any released code yet, it's not by
any means set in stone.  I'd be willing to simply change it to take a
boolean parameter always.  Comments anyone?

            regards, tom lane

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> Sent: 09 June 2002 20:46
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: Patch for current_schemas to optionally include
> implicit schemas
>
>
> "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes:
> > Attached is the result which seems to work OK here. The existing
> > current_schemas() works as previously, & I have added
> > current_schemas(bool) which will return the full implicit/explicit
> > path if passed true or the explicit path is pass false.
>
> This patch will break the existing current_schemas() function
> AFAICS; the code will be testing a value that it wasn't
> passed, and getting a random result, so it's unclear which
> behavior you'd get.

Ahh, I was unaware of that - too used to VB & C# where booleans default
to false I suppose...

> Since current_schemas() isn't in any released code yet, it's
> not by any means set in stone.  I'd be willing to simply
> change it to take a boolean parameter always.  Comments anyone?

Fine with me.

Regards, Dave.