Tom Lane wrote:
> That's getting to be a bit complicated to replicate in N places, though.
> Plus if we ever want to make it work like Alvaro is thinking of, we'd
> have to go back and change all those places again. So I propose
> inventing a function
> int guc_complaint_level(GucSource source)
> that encapsulates this logic.
I think this makes plenty of sense. However, something that occured to
me just now is that perhaps the right thing to do in the long term is to
put this message in errcontext and leave the "invalid value for XXX" as
the main error message. That would probably involve attaching a
errcontext callback and removing the complaint_level from this message
altogether, letting the outer caller deal with it. I'm not sure how
would GUC work if the assign hook did not raise an ERROR in the
interactive case though.
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2007-12-27 13:21:29|
|Subject: Re: BUG #3842: Service|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2007-12-27 11:27:26|
|Subject: Re: BUG #3843: archiver process is restarted after thesmart shutdown|