Re: invalid search_path complaints

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) -> errorsource == PGC_S_TEST (testing value for ALTER SET) -> noticeelse -> silently
ignorebad 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