You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently one can only create and/or reference a table to insert into in the default (public) schema, which is often discouraged or outright not allowed.
Describe the solution you'd like
We should have a configuration option to specify the schema where the target table is.
Describe alternatives you've considered
An alternative is to specify the search_path via connection options, but it's not obvious; we should have a more explicit configuration option for this common use case.
Additional context
A customer of ours tried to specify the table name that included the schema (like schema_name.table_name), because their policies (and general security best practices) don't allow creation of user objects in the public schema, and was surprised to see no rows inserted in that table. Instead, a table called public."schema_name.table_name" was created by the plugin and populated. We spent a lot of time trying to understand what's going on. Having an explicit table_schema configuration property would allow them to avoid the mistake and save the troubleshooting effort.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently one can only create and/or reference a table to insert into in the default (
public
) schema, which is often discouraged or outright not allowed.Describe the solution you'd like
We should have a configuration option to specify the schema where the target table is.
Describe alternatives you've considered
An alternative is to specify the search_path via connection options, but it's not obvious; we should have a more explicit configuration option for this common use case.
Additional context
A customer of ours tried to specify the table name that included the schema (like
schema_name.table_name
), because their policies (and general security best practices) don't allow creation of user objects in thepublic
schema, and was surprised to see no rows inserted in that table. Instead, a table calledpublic."schema_name.table_name"
was created by the plugin and populated. We spent a lot of time trying to understand what's going on. Having an explicittable_schema
configuration property would allow them to avoid the mistake and save the troubleshooting effort.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: