To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
cc: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>,
	PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects 
In-reply-to: <3C58BBB3.58D5F964@tpf.co.jp> 
References: 
 <Pine.NEB.4.33.0201290939350.24201-100000@vespasia.home-net.internetconnect.net>
	<3C573C5E.F01B48C2@tpf.co.jp> <27527.1012432386@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<3C58A472.2E90C21C@tpf.co.jp> <29268.1012444330@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<3C58BBB3.58D5F964@tpf.co.jp>
Comments: In-reply-to Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
	message dated "Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:36:19 +0900"
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:43:41 -0500
Message-ID: <29733.1012448621@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

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.

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.

			regards, tom lane