* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > The code definitely will complain if you try to interactively SET > temp_tablespaces to a space you lack permissions for. However, there > has never been a case in which people would hold still for warnings > emitted as a consequence of values read from postgresql.conf or other > background sources, and I doubt that the response would be different > if we made this variable act like that. See for example past > discussions about what to do with invalid entries in search_path.
Indeed, I fully expected the comparison argument to search_path, but I
have to admit that search_path feels a great deal more like CWD, while
the temp tablespaces is more like trying to write to /tmp and getting an
error.
That is to say, tablespaces and in particular temp tablespaces are much
more 'system' level than search paths. I don't expect regular users to
change their temp tablepace, while I expect them to change their search
path on a regular basis.
In any case, I was suggesting a NOTICE rather than a WARNING, though I
appreciate that both could make noise for users who don't expect it.
Still, I don't expect many users would complain about this, while they
would complain about a similar thing for search_path. Perhaps that's
not how they *should* act, but humans aren't always logical. :)
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
