Re: Is this a bug?

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 09:11:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
>> > <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> >>> Well, it's fairly harmless, but it might not be a bad idea to tighten that
>> >>> up.
>> >> The attached patch tighten that up.
>> > Hm... It might be interesting to include it in 9.4 IMO, somewhat
>> > grouping with what has been done in a6542a4 for SET and ABORT.
>>
>> Meh. There will always be another thing we could squeeze in; I don't
>> think this is particularly urgent, and it's late to the party.
>
> Do we want this patch for 9.5? It throws an error for invalid reloption
> specifications.

Fine with me. But I have a vague recollection of seeing pg_upgrade
doing this on purpose to create TOAST tables or something... am I
misremembering?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company