Re: pg_dump DROP commands and implicit search paths
От | Rod Taylor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump DROP commands and implicit search paths |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 002e01c1fae3$ea7941e0$8001a8c0@jester обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | pg_dump DROP commands and implicit search paths (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_dump DROP commands and implicit search paths
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> No, it's a necessary thing to comply with the SQL standard. > The standard thinks all the predefined names are keywords and > should override user names. Therefore there *must* be a mode Hmm.. I'm not fond of this part of the standard in this case -- though it's got to be there for good reason. I think I understand the problem better, which may have an easy solution. Based on the assumption a DROP SCHEMA statement will also be issued. If pg_dump issues a DROP of all user objects at the top, as per user request, does it really need to issue a DROP of all the objects? If you DROP the schema, all of the objects contained within the schema will go with it. So technically you don't need to drop types, tables, functions which belong to a given schema. You just drop that schema. So we're left with public and pg_catalog. How about using a qualified name in all cases of DROP, BUT only issuing drops other than drop schema schema for public and pg_catalog contents? Perhaps public could be treated like any other schema as well -- which really only leaves pg_catalog or no problem since thats what will be hit by default.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: