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
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 |