Re: BUG #14192: pg_dump/pg_restore omit setting search_path in restored db
От | Hans Buschmann |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #14192: pg_dump/pg_restore omit setting search_path in restored db |
Дата | |
Msg-id | D2B9F2A20670C84685EF7D183F2949E2373D5F@gigant.nidsa.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | BUG #14192: pg_dump/pg_restore omit setting search_path in restored db (buschmann@nidsa.net) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #14192: pg_dump/pg_restore omit setting search_path in
restored db
Re: BUG #14192: pg_dump/pg_restore omit setting search_path in restored db |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Thank you for your quick reply (my first post/bug report). When changeing my database partly to partitions, I introduced two = schemas to separate current and archive data. According to Postgres DOC chapter 5.8.3 it is generally not advisable to = use schema qualified names for any objects but to use search_path = instead. In my opinion this encouraged naming of objects without explicit schema = is semantically part of the application (e.g. functions) even when not = written by words. When setting the search_path altered for the database it becomes = semantically a part of the database and the application. This implies it = should be dumped with the content of the database to preserve the = consistency of the application. The same applies to cases with only one schema with no standard name = (when public becomes myapplication). My point is the logical consistency of what consists a database and how = to transport all information in one container (a dump). Even the syntax (ALTER DATABASE xxxdb SET SEARCH PATH) suggests this to = be part of the database and not of a session or the cluster. These are my 2 cents as being relatively new to PostgreSQL. Thanks Hans Buschmann
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: