Re: invalid search_path complaints

Scott Mead <scottm@openscg.com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@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