Re: search_path vs extensions

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> On 5/28/09 12:36 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> That really seems exactly to be what we're proposing with pre_ and post_
>> search_path components: don't change current meaning of search_path,
>> just give DBAs better ways to manage it. And now that you're leaning
>> towards a search_path suffix, don't you want a prefix too?

> Yeah, I thought about a prefix, but I couldn't come up with a way it 
> would be useful, and I could come up with a lot of scenarios where it 
> would be a big foot-gun.

Also, a search path prefix is going to create curious interactions with
the default creation schema.  A suffix seems much less dangerous in that
respect.
        regards, tom lane