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

From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(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 22:39:24
Message-ID: 4C8FF99C.3060800@timbira.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Tom Lane escreveu:
> ISTM your
> argument can be reduced to "there should be no hidden values ever", but
> I doubt we're going to buy that.
>
No, the "hidden values" has their use case (hiding legal values that we don't
want to expose, for example, true/false, 0/1, yes/no). My point is if they are
not useful let's rip them to not confuse people.

--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
http://www.timbira.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-09-14 23:34:24 Re: BUG #5656: parameter 'client_min_messages' accept values not listed in enumvals
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-09-14 18:57:00 Re: BUG #5656: parameter 'client_min_messages' accept values not listed in enumvals