Re: VACUUM fails to parse 0 and 1 as boolean value

From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz
Cc: robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: VACUUM fails to parse 0 and 1 as boolean value
Date: 2019-05-21 07:00:25
Message-ID: 20190521.160025.138003817.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At Tue, 21 May 2019 14:31:32 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote in <20190521053132(dot)GG1921(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
> 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.

Yeah, I agree for longer-term. The opinion was short-term
consideration on v12. We would be able to achieve full
unification on sub-applications in v13 in that direction. (But I
don't think it's good that apps pass-through options then server
checkes them..)

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Corey Huinker 2019-05-21 07:04:07 Re: Table as argument in postgres function
Previous Message Juan José Santamaría Flecha 2019-05-21 06:38:42 Re: Compile using the Visual Studio 2019