On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> and an >> error-reporting patch that Tom weighed in on over the weekend. This >> last suffers from the issue that it's not quite clear whether Tom is >> going to do the work or whether he's expecting the submitter to do it. > > If you mean the business about allowing GUCs in postgresql.conf to be > applied even if there are semantic errors elsewhere, I'm just as happy > to let Alexey or Florian have a go at it first, if they want. The real > question at the moment is do we have consensus about changing that? > Because if we do, the submitted patch is certainly not something to > commit as-is, and should be marked Returned With Feedback.
I'm not totally convinced. The proposed patch is pretty small, and seems to stand on its own two feet. I don't hear anyone objecting to your proposed plan, but OTOH it doesn't strike me as such a good plan that we should reject all other improvements in the meantime. Maybe I'm missing something... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
