Re: Remove redundant extra_desc info for enum GUC variables?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Remove redundant extra_desc info for enum GUC variables?
Date: 2008-05-28 15:20:04
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah: LOG level sorts differently in the two cases; it's fairly high
>> priority for server log output and much lower for client output.

> Ok, easy fix if we break them apart. Should we continue to accept
> values that we're not going to care about, or should I change that at
> the same time? (for example, client_min_messages doesn't use INFO,
> but we do accept that in <= 8.3 anyway)

I'd be inclined to keep the actual behavior the same as it was.
We didn't document INFO for this variable, perhaps, but it's accepted
and has a well-defined behavior.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2008-05-28 17:55:27 Re: Avoiding second heap scan in VACUUM
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-05-28 15:17:06 Re: Add dblink function to check if a named connection exists