Scott Mead <sco...@openscg.com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Well, that's an interesting analogy. Are you arguing that we should
>> always accept any syntactically-valid search_path setting, no matter
>> whether the mentioned schemas exist? It wouldn't be hard to do that.
> I think we should always accept a syntactically valid search_path.
I could live with that.
>> The fun stuff comes in when you try to say "I want a warning in these
>> contexts but not those", because (a) the behavior you think you want
>> turns out to be pretty squishy, and (b) it's not always clear from the
>> implementation level what the context is.
> ISTM that just issuing a warning whenever you set the search_path (no
> matter which context) feels valid (and better than the above *nix
> behavior). I would personally be opposed to seeing it on login however.
You're getting squishy on me ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
