On Sat, 2020-03-28 at 11:59 +1300, David Rowley wrote: > On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 22:40, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at> wrote: > > The new meaning of -2 should be documented, other than that it looks > > good to me. > > But the users don't need to know anything about -2. It's not possible > to explicitly set the value to -2. This is just the reset value of the > reloption which means "use the GUC".
I see. > > I'll accept the new semantics, but they don't make me happy. People are > > used to -1 meaning "use the GUC value instead". > > The problem with having -1 on the reloption meaning use the GUC, in > this case, is that it means the reset value of the reloption must be > -1 and we need to allow them to set -2 explicitly, and if we do that, > then -1 also becomes a valid value that users can set. Maybe that's > not the end of the world, but I'd rather have the reset value be > unsettable by users. To me, that's less confusing as there are fewer > special values to remember the meaning of. > > The reason I want a method to explicitly disable the feature is the > fact that it's easy to document and it should reduce the number of > people who are confused about the best method to disable the feature. > I know there's going to be a non-zero number of people who'll want to > do that. In the light of that, I have no objections. Yours, Laurenz Albe
