On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I am not sure whether we should consider back-patching this into 9.1, >>> although that would be necessary if we wanted to fix Robert's original >>> complaint against 9.1. Thoughts? > >> I guess my feeling would be "no", because it seems like a clear >> behavior change, even though I agree the new behavior's better. Since >> my original investigation was prompted by a customer complaint, it's >> tempting to say we should, but there's not much good making customer A >> happy if we make customer B unhappy with the same change. > > Well, although it's a behavior change, it consists entirely of removing > an error check. To suppose that this would break somebody's app, > you'd have to suppose that they were relying on "SET search_path = > no_such_schema" to throw an error. That's possible I guess, but it > seems significantly less likely than that somebody would be expecting > the ALTER ... SET case to not result in warnings. There are > considerably cheaper and easier-to-use methods for checking whether a > schema exists than catching an error. > > Anyway, if you're happy with 9.1 being an outlier on this behavior, > I won't press the point.
I'm not, particularly. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
