Horton

Re: invalid search_path complaints

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Christoph Berg <cb@df7cb.de>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2012-04-11T03:14:17Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Revise the API for GUC variable assign hooks.

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@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