Re: Information/schema hiding...

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Information/schema hiding...
Дата
Msg-id 8448.1081772142@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Information/schema hiding...  (Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org>)
Ответы Re: Information/schema hiding...  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> writes:
> Two reasons come to mind.  First, If you change your search_path to a 
> valid schema that you have no access to and try and look for database 
> objects, you get the impression that its an empty schema and not a 
> schema that you don't have access to.  To prevent this, I changed the 
> behavior of SET search_path so that it validates its input.

You can't actually do that.  In many (most?) situations, the search_path
value is fixed before a backend even starts; if you try to error out
because you don't like the contents, you'll prevent backends from
starting at all.

Also consider the situation where backend A creates, deletes, or changes
the permissions on schemas that are mentioned in backend B's search
path.  In the existing code these cases behave consistently and much
the same as Unix PATH searching does: at all times your effective path
consists of those elements of PATH that actually exist and are readable.

It would be possible to make interactive SET behave differently from the
non-interactive case, but I don't think that would be an improvement in
understandability or usability.  It's certainly not worth doing if the
only argument for changing is the one you give above.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Jeroen T. Vermeulen"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: 7.5 beta version
Следующее
От: Fabien COELHO
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: make == as = ?