Re: run GUC check hooks on RESET

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: run GUC check hooks on RESET
Date: 2012-02-15 18:23:59
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYtbvE0STTCeU8UsKMaidVWaREFVCy90AC4y44Vhf5_jw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner"  wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>> I agree it's a bug that you can do what Kevin's example shows.
>>
>> I'll look at it and see if I can pull together a patch.
>
> Attached.
>
> Basically, if a GUC has a check function, this patch causes it to be
> run on a RESET just like it is on a SET, to make sure that the
> resulting value is valid to set within the context.  Some messages
> needed adjustment.  While I was there, I made cod a little more
> consistent among related GUCs.
>
> I also added a little to the regression tests to cover this.

This patch makes me a little nervous, because the existing behavior
seems to have been coded for quite deliberately. Sadly, I don't see
any comments explaining why the RESET case was excluded originally.
On the other hand, I can't see what it would break, either. Have you
gone through all the check hooks and verified that we're not violating
any of their assumptions?

I assume that you're thinking we'd only fix this in master?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-02-15 18:45:29 Re: [trivial patch] typo in doc/src/sgml/sepgsql.sgml
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-02-15 18:13:37 Re: Different gettext domain needed for error context