2010/6/17 Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I actually wonder if we shouldn't automatically tag plpgsql functions
>>> with the search_path in effect at the time of their creation (as if
>>> the user had done ALTER FUNCTION ... SET search_path=...whatever the
>>> current search path is...).
>>
>> That would be extremely expensive and not very backwards-compatible.
>> In the case at hand, just writing "RETURN bar.bar();" would be the
>> best-performing solution.
>>
>
> I wonder if we should have a mode for plpgsql functions where all name
> lookups are done at definition time So the bar() function would be
> resolved to bar.bar() and stored that way permanently so that pg_dump
> dumped the definition as bar.bar().
>
> That would be probably just as good as setting the search path on the
> function for most users and better for some. It would have the same
> problem with dynamic sql that a lot of things have though.
+1 IMHO PG should dump the bar() function call as bar.bar() to be
safe. Using fully qualified function name is what I did in my source
code, to work around this problem.
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot