Re: Add CREATE support to event triggers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add CREATE support to event triggers
Date: 2014-02-06 05:08:45
Message-ID: 21246.1391663325@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Then again, why is the behavior of schema-qualifying absolutely
>>> everything even desirable?

>> Well, someone could create a collation in another schema with the same
>> name as a system collation and the command would become ambiguous.

> Hmm, good point. I guess we don't worry much about this with pg_dump
> because we assume that we're restoring into an empty database (and if
> not, the user gets to keep both pieces). You're applying a higher
> standard here.

Robert, that's just horsepucky. pg_dump is very careful about schemas.
It's also careful to not schema-qualify names unnecessarily, which is an
intentional tradeoff to improve readability of the dump --- at the cost
that the dump might break if restored into a nonempty database with
conflicting objects. In the case of data passed to event triggers,
there's a different tradeoff to be made: people will probably value
consistency over readability, so always-qualify is probably the right
choice here. But in neither case are we being sloppy.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Flower 2014-02-06 05:11:44 Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2014-02-06 04:43:24 Re: Row-security on updatable s.b. views