Re: invalid search_path complaints

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I am not sure whether we should consider back-patching this into 9.1,
>>> although that would be necessary if we wanted to fix Robert's original
>>> complaint against 9.1.  Thoughts?
>
>> I guess my feeling would be "no", because it seems like a clear
>> behavior change, even though I agree the new behavior's better.  Since
>> my original investigation was prompted by a customer complaint, it's
>> tempting to say we should, but there's not much good making customer A
>> happy if we make customer B unhappy with the same change.
>
> Well, although it's a behavior change, it consists entirely of removing
> an error check.  To suppose that this would break somebody's app,
> you'd have to suppose that they were relying on "SET search_path =
> no_such_schema" to throw an error.  That's possible I guess, but it
> seems significantly less likely than that somebody would be expecting
> the ALTER ... SET case to not result in warnings.  There are
> considerably cheaper and easier-to-use methods for checking whether a
> schema exists than catching an error.
>
> Anyway, if you're happy with 9.1 being an outlier on this behavior,
> I won't press the point.

I'm not, particularly.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company