Re: disabling log_rotation_age feature.

On Thursday, June 12, 2014, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com <javascript:;>> writes:
> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane-2 [via PostgreSQL] <
> > ml-node+s1045698n5807014h58(at)n5(dot)nabble(dot)com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> I wonder if we should round fractions up instead of down in that logic?
> >> It might be less surprising for those GUCs where zero is special, and
> >> it seems like about a wash for most others.
>
> > ​I think documenting the behavior better,
>
> I don't. If you have to explain it, it probably needs improvement.

No argument with the philosophy.

>
> > Green field maybe I'd say yes but given that the new behavior could turn
> > features on that are currently off it doesn't seem to be beneficial
> enough
> > to warrant changing.
>
> I don't think that argument holds water either. We routinely make
> changes that break old postgresql.conf files. Not in minor updates
> of course, but none of this is material for back-patching.
>

Then I'd pick throwing an error if a floating point value is assigned to a
parameter that is defined to accept integer. I'd rather actually break the
file and not silently redefine its contents.

David J.