Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> This is making things worse, not better. You have just changed the > >> behavior, and not in a good way. Formerly these were no-ops on > >> a unix socket connection, and now they can throw errors. > > > Is this the proper way to fix the issue? Patch attached. > > AFAICS there is no issue, and the code is fine as-is. > > Modifying the "get" functions as you propose would be harmless, but it's > also not an improvement, since it would result in redundant code in the > functions when those macros aren't defined. > > I don't see any real advantage in making the set and get functions > look slightly more alike. They're doing different things.
OK, thanks for the analysis. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
