Re: BUG #5656: parameter 'client_min_messages' accept values not listed in enumvals

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. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  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