Re: Seems to be impossible to set a NULL search_path

> david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
>
>> tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us wrote:
>>
>> search_path's value is not a SQL name. It's a list of SQL names wrapped in a string ... and the list can be empty.
>
> This doesn't seem to be correct - wrapping them in single quotes in the SET command ends up behaving as if you wrapped them in double quotes anywhere else (and wrapping them individually in double quotes here works just fine too).

And then...

> adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com wrote:
>
> Those are creating objects. Set search_path is setting a configuration value. Pretty sure it is:
>
> { TO | = } { value | 'value' | DEFAULT

There's different use cases. For example:

set my_namspace.x = 'Dog house';
show my_namspace.x ;

I can't reconcile what you three (Tom, David, and Adrian) have said. I'm interested to hear how you interpret what I showed in this reply:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/48E1391E-5A21-4736-B4B1-8B9468ECAFD4%40yugabyte.com

and in particular to this:

create schema "s1, s2";
create table "s1, s2".t(k int);
insert into "s1, s2".t(k) values(42);
set search_path = "s1, s2";
show search_path;
select k from t;

OR (with single quotes in "set search_path":

create schema "s1, s2";
create table "s1, s2".t(k int);
insert into "s1, s2".t(k) values(42);
set search_path = 's1, s2';
show search_path;
select k from t;

I get a resounding 42 in both cases. Now try this:

set search_path = no_such_schema, "No Such Schema";
show search_path;

All outcomes accord with the mental model that you tell me is wrong.