From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
Subject: | Re: run GUC check hooks on RESET |
Date: | 2012-02-15 22:26:16 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobVHgLHoptKecvTUGOyLsACq3RA3Nxi6P8Hp-Xn_r36Uw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> That is unfortunate. I guess it points out the value of adding a
> comment to point out why we would want to check these values even on
> a reset to a previously-used value.
+1 for such a comment.
>> I assume that you're thinking we'd only fix this in master?
>
> Without this, I don't think it's possible for someone to enforce
> protection of their data through SSI in an ironclad way. So there
> is at least some case to be made to take it back as far as 9.1.
I'm OK with that, but perhaps the only-tangentially-related changes
where you swap the order of certain error messages ought to be
separated out and committed only to master? That stuff doesn't seem
like material for a back-patch.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-02-15 22:29:41 | Re: Designing an extension for feature-space similarity search |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-02-15 22:21:42 | Re: Command Triggers |