On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > For example, doesn't 'DROP table a_table' drop the
> > a_table table in a schema in the *path* if there's
> > no a_table table in the current schema ?
>
> Sure. And that's exactly what it should do, IMHO.
> Otherwise the notion that you can ignore your private
> schema (at the front of the path) if you're not using
> it falls down. Also, we wouldn't be able to implement
> temp tables via a backend-local schema at the front of
> the path.
Well, I disagree on this one. :-) I'd vote drop should need a specific
schema if it's not the current one. But I won't push the point. :-)
> Any security concerns here should be addressed by putting
> ACLs on the schemas you don't want altered; not by contorting
> the notion of a search path to work for some operations and
> not others.
I'm not so concerned about security as being sure of operator intent. ACLs
address security (and should be used), but they don't address making sure
you delete exactly what you wanted.
Take care,
Bill