From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: VACUUM fails to parse 0 and 1 as boolean value |
Date: | 2019-05-21 13:40:22 |
Message-ID: | 19013.1558446022@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 09:55:59AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Well, it's confusing that we're not consistent about which spellings
>> are accepted. The GUC system accepts true/false, on/off, and 0/1, so
>> it seems reasonable to me to standardize on that treatment across the
>> board. That's not necessarily something we have to do for v12, but
>> longer-term, consistency is of value.
> +1.
> Note: boolean GUCs accept a bit more: yes, no, tr, fa, and their upper
> case flavors, etc. These are everything parse_bool():bool.c accepts
> as valid values.
I'm not excited about allowing abbreviated keywords here, though.
Allowing true/false, on/off, and 0/1 seems reasonable but let's
not go overboard.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-05-21 13:49:18 | Re: PG 12 draft release notes |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-05-21 12:40:49 | Re: A few more opportunities to use TupleTableSlotOps fields |