Re: invalid search_path complaints

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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.

regards, tom lane