Re: VACUUM fails to parse 0 and 1 as boolean value

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: VACUUM fails to parse 0 and 1 as boolean value
Date: 2019-05-21 13:40:22
Message-ID: 19013.1558446022@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 09:55:59AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Well, it's confusing that we're not consistent about which spellings
>> are accepted. The GUC system accepts true/false, on/off, and 0/1, so
>> it seems reasonable to me to standardize on that treatment across the
>> board. That's not necessarily something we have to do for v12, but
>> longer-term, consistency is of value.

> +1.

> Note: boolean GUCs accept a bit more: yes, no, tr, fa, and their upper
> case flavors, etc. These are everything parse_bool():bool.c accepts
> as valid values.

I'm not excited about allowing abbreviated keywords here, though.
Allowing true/false, on/off, and 0/1 seems reasonable but let's
not go overboard.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2019-05-21 13:49:18 Re: PG 12 draft release notes
Previous Message Robert Haas 2019-05-21 12:40:49 Re: A few more opportunities to use TupleTableSlotOps fields