Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> IMO the real problem is essentially that GUC assign hooks have two
>> functions, checking and canonicalization of the value-to-be-stored
>> versus executing secondary actions when an assignment is made; and
>> there's no way to get at just the first one.

> Yes, I think that's right.  A related point is that the API for assign
> hooks is not consistent across all data types: string assign hooks can
> return a replacement value, whereas everyone else can only succeed or
> fail.

Right.  In the original design we only foresaw the need to canonicalize
string values, so that's why it's like that.  This change will make it
more consistent.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: GUC assign hooks (was Re: wal_buffers = -1 and SIGHUP) at 2011-04-03 22:33:03 from Robert Haas

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Merlin Moncure	Date: 2011-04-03 23:40:01
	Subject: Re: Process local hint bit cache
Previous:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2011-04-03 22:33:03
	Subject: Re: GUC assign hooks (was Re: wal_buffers = -1 and SIGHUP)