Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote: > Alvaro Herrera escreveu: > >> IIRC, my last patch includes a partial validation code for RESET cases. For > >> example, the last SQL will not be atomic (invalid reloption silently > >> ignored). > >> So, why not apply the namespace validation code to RESET case too? Patch is > >> attached too. > > > > No, we must not validate the options passed to RESET, because we want to > > be able to reset even options that we do not currently think that are > > valid. Consider that we might be trying to clean up after options set > > by a previous version of a module. > > > Ah, idea withdrawn. But we should at least document this behavior.
Well, it is documented -- see amoptions here http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/index-functions.html The problem with this is that documentation for reloptions is scattered all over the place. I think we should have a separate section somewhere on which they are discussed at length. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers