From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, thommy <der(dot)thommy(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #5656: parameter 'client_min_messages' accept values not listed in enumvals |
Date: | 2010-09-14 18:12:11 |
Message-ID: | 201009141812.o8EICBK27530@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> Tom Lane escreveu:
> > "thommy" <der(dot)thommy(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> >> I just came across a small inconsistency:
> >
> >> pg=# select enumvals from pg_settings where name='client_min_messages';
> >> enumvals
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >> {debug5,debug4,debug3,debug2,debug1,log,notice,warning,error}
> >
> > It's intentional that PANIC isn't listed there (nor is FATAL),
> > on the grounds that it's not really a useful setting.
> >
> Fine. But shouldn't we remove these options from docs and/or code?
We are basically reusing the same validation code for this and other
min_messages settings. Is it worth creating a custom one just for
client_min_messages? Probably not.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2010-09-14 18:47:15 | Re: BUG #5656: parameter 'client_min_messages' accept values not listed in enumvals |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-09-14 18:07:35 | Re: BUG #5657: wrong entry in sql_features |