On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 21:49 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 15:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > >> Could we report both? > > > > > > > Yes, we could easily do that if we want to. > > > > > > It would be entirely silly to do so, since (a) the old value hasn't > > > been changed if we fail here, and (b) it's irrelevant to the nature > > > of the error. > > > > That's reasonable. If it is impossible to set it to an > > impossible/failing value then that is even better. > > > > Magnus seems to say it is possible to set this and then have it fail > > later when it is used. Not sure which is correct. > > It shouldn't ever happen. It happened here because there was a bug in > my original patch, that has now been fixed. So unless there are more > bugs in it, it is now back to can't happen.
OK, good. Just checking it won't ever happen to me ;-) (and if it does, I have a backout plan). -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
