Re: search_path improvements

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 08:05:33PM +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
>> As I said earlier I doubt "pop" or "delete" is ever going to actually
>> be what you want. I suspect you're far more likely to want to restore
>> it to what it was before you started altering it.
>>
>> As support I'll point out this is what our C api has. There's no short
>> cut to strip out a single element of the path but the normal calling
>> pattern is to set aside a copy of the old path, add modify it in some
>> way -- often adding a schema to the head -- then restore the old path.
>
> Without reading much of what's been said here (I've read maybe ten of
> the posts in this thread) I'll say it sounds a lot like lexical closures
> are needed.  Code is free to define and use generally use whatever is
> in their closure, but can't affect what's outside it unless explicitly
> granted.
>
> I saw these mentioned in another post by David Wheeler[1] but my client
> says it wasn't directly responded to.  He calls it "lexical scoping"
> but I think closing over the environment seems more suitable---mainly
> because it'll "go wrong" less often in the presence of functions defined
> as "security definer".

+1.

...Robert