Re: Remove redundant extra_desc info for enum GUC variables?

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Remove redundant extra_desc info for enum GUC variables?
Date: 2008-05-28 09:10:10
Message-ID: 20080528111010.0e94fff1@mha-laptop.hagander.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> >> One point of interest is that for client_min_messages and
> >> log_min_messages, the ordering of the values has significance, and
> >> it's different for the two cases.
>
> > Is there any actual reason why they're supposed to be treated
> > differently?
>
> 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)

//Magnus

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2008-05-28 10:08:12 Re: Hint Bits and Write I/O
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2008-05-28 09:04:11 Re: Hiding undocumented enum values?