Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 10:43 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> * renamed wal_mode to wal_level

> I'm wondering whether this should be a list rather than an enum? If we
> add something in the future that adds more info to WAL but doesn't fit
> the one-dimensional model this implements then we could be in trouble.
> Should this be
> e.g. wal_xxxx = feature2, feature3
> e.g. wal_xxxx = feature3
> e.g. wal_xxxx = feature1

I'm a bit suspicious of going in this direction, mainly because
DateStyle has been such a PITA over the years. It's not always obvious
to users whether adding or removing an item in a list causes something
to turn on or off.

In any case, the project's expectations for forward compatibility of
postgresql.conf settings have always been very low. I don't think we
should try to design wal_mode to solve future problems, just the ones
we are faced with right now. If it gets changed to look completely
different in some future version, that's not a problem.

regards, tom lane