Re: ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name
От | Bernd Helmle |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 15A1CA3343C62BE4A6D33EDD@amenophis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
--On 30. Oktober 2010 18:59:30 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I'm not sure whether that really fixes anything, or just provides people > with a larger-caliber foot-gun. See for example recent complaints about > citext misbehaving if it's not in the public schema (or more generally, > any schema not in the search path). I think we'd need to think a bit > harder about the behavior of objects that aren't in the search path > before creating a facility like this, since it seems to be tantamount > to promising that extensions won't break when pushed around to different > schemas. > > I'm also a bit less than enthused about the implementation approach. > If we're going to have a policy that every object type must support > ALTER SET SCHEMA, I think it might be time to refactor, rather than > copying-and-pasting similar boilerplate code for every one. This reminds me of a small discussion we had some years ago when i targeted this for the sake of completeness of ASS (see <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-06/msg00021.php>). I didn't follow the previous discussions about EXTENSION very closely, but to amend the idea made in the mentioned thread, couldn't we just invent a facility to move classes of objects belonging to an extension, only? -- Thanks Bernd
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: