Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar jul 19 12:09:24 -0400 2011: > 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.
+1. Alexey stated that he would get back on this patch for reworks. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
