Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.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. 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