From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Should we get rid of custom_variable_classes altogether? |
Date: | 2011-10-03 16:10:39 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYETcgJA-x21YjpiCJNkuxxqckfdzuZ3HpTWOudE3W4Vw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Yeah. custom_variable_classes is a pretty annoying wart, but if it's
>> set to the default value (namely, empty) then it actually does prevent
>> people from setting bajillions of completely pointless settings, which
>> seems like it has some merit. I'm not sure it has enough merit to
>> justify keeping it around, but it has more than none. We could allow
>> entering a date of February 31st, too, but we don't.
>
> Well, that argument was essentially why we put it in to begin with.
> But I think pretty much everybody agrees that it's more trouble than
> it's worth (in fact, weren't you one of the people complaining about
> it?)
Well, yes. But I was arguing that we should replace the leaky dam
with one that's watertight, rather than demolishing the dam.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-03 16:20:15 | Re: [v9.2] DROP statement reworks |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-03 16:02:14 | Re: pg_dump issues |