From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL |
Date: | 2012-12-03 15:32:31 |
Message-ID: | 13044.1354548751@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:
>> opt_persistent: PERSISTENT { $$ = TRUE; }
>> | /*EMPTY*/ %prec Op { $$ = FALSE; }
>> ;
>>
>> I am not sure if there are any problems with above change.
> We usually try to avoid operator precedence declarations. They
> sometimes have unforeseen consequences.
Yes. This is not an improvement over factoring out opt_persistent as
I recommended previously.
>> Found one difference with the change is, the command "reset persistent"
>> execution results in different errors with/without change.
>>
>> without change:
>> unrecognized configuration parameter "persistent".
>> with change:
>> syntax error at or near ";"
> ...but this in itself doesn't seem like a problem.
Indeed, this demonstrates why kluging the behavior this way isn't a good
solution. If PERSISTENT is an unreserved word, then you *should* get
the former error, because it's a perfectly valid interpretation of the
command. If you get the latter then PERSISTENT is not acting like an
unreserved word.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2012-12-03 15:36:12 | Re: [v9.3] Row-Level Security |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-03 15:28:31 | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL |