Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 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...
To me, the proposed patch adds another layer of contortionism on top of
code that's already logically messy. I find it pretty ugly, and would
prefer to try to simplify the code before not after we attempt to deal
with the feature the patch wants to add.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
