From: | Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> |
Cc: | Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Is this a bug? |
Date: | 2014-03-13 14:04:00 |
Message-ID: | CAFcNs+r-0Rkw5YDtt=NtyC7K4B4V9AsZ_OGd+DLk728fskAAnA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>
wrote:
>
> On 13-03-2014 00:11, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> > Shouldn't the "ALTER" statements below raise an exception?
> >
> For consistency, yes. Who cares? I mean, there is no harm in resetting
> an unrecognized parameter. Have in mind that tighten it up could break
> scripts. In general, I'm in favor of validating things.
>
I know this could break scripts, but I think a consistent behavior should
be raise an exception when an option doesn't exists.
> euler(at)euler=# reset noname;
> ERROR: 42704: unrecognized configuration parameter "noname"
> LOCAL: set_config_option, guc.c:5220
>
This is a consistent behavior.
Regards,
--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
>> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
>> Blog sobre TI: http://fabriziomello.blogspot.com
>> Perfil Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-03-13 14:17:17 | Re: Patch: show relation and tuple infos of a lock to acquire |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-03-13 14:03:03 | Re: [PATCH] Store Extension Options |