On Jun 19, 2024, at 13:50, Jelte Fennema-Nio <me@jeltef.nl> wrote:
> This indeed does sound like the behaviour that pretty much every
> existing extension wants to have. One small addition/clarification
> that I would make to your definition: fully qualified references to
> other objects should still be allowed.
Would be tricky for referring to objects from other extensions with no defined schema, or are relatable.
> 1. To have a safe search_path that can be used in SET search_path on a
> function (see also [1]).
> 2. To make it easy for extension authors to avoid conflicts with other
> extensions/UDFs.
These would indeed be nice improvements IMO.
Best,
David