Re: invalid search_path complaints

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Anyway, if you're happy with 9.1 being an outlier on this behavior,
>>> I won't press the point.
>
>> I'm not, particularly.
>
> Well, the other thing we could do is tweak the rules for when to print a
> complaint.  I notice that in check_temp_tablespaces we use the rule
>
>        source == PGC_S_SESSION (ie, SET) -> error
>        source == PGC_S_TEST (testing value for ALTER SET) -> notice
>        else -> silently ignore bad name
>
> which seems like it could be applied to search_path without giving
> anyone grounds for complaint.  I'm still in favor of the previous patch
> for HEAD, but maybe we could do this in 9.1.

Would that amount to removing the WARNING that was added in 9.1? If
so, I think I could sign on to that proposal.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company