In response to Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com> writes:
> > Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> >>> Might be more robust to say
> >>> if (trace_temp_files >= 0)
> > I specified in the GUC config that minimum allowable value is -1.
> I'd still tend to go with Andrew's suggestion because it makes this
> particular bit of code self-defending against bad values. Yes, it's
> reasonably safe given that bit of coding way over yonder in guc.c,
> but there's no particularly good reason why this code has to depend
> on that to avoid doing something stupid. And it's easier to understand
> too --- you don't have to go looking in guc.c to convince yourself it's
Ahh ... well, I've probably already argued about it more than it's worth.
The patch is easy enough to adjust, find attached.
Collaborative Fusion Inc.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-01-04 16:42:33|
|Subject: Re: Odd numeric->float4/8 casting behaviour |
|Previous:||From: Markus Schiltknecht||Date: 2007-01-04 16:28:39|
|Subject: Re: InitPostgres and flatfiles question|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2007-01-04 16:51:50|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] wal_checksum = on (default) | off|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-01-04 16:31:37|
|Subject: Re: Assorted typos |