On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
