Re: initdb's -c option behaves wrong way?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: initdb's -c option behaves wrong way?
Date: 2024-01-17 17:05:27
Message-ID: 2040188.1705511127@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Hmm, how about raising an error if multiple options are given targetting
> the same GUC?

I don't see any reason to do that. The underlying configuration
files don't complain about duplicate entries, they just take the
last setting.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2024-01-17 17:17:09 Re: Emit fewer vacuum records by reaping removable tuples during pruning
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2024-01-17 16:53:23 Re: More new SQL/JSON item methods