On 1/25/13 1:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 01:46:46PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> This matter was already closed: >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=949 >> >> It looks like your patch reverts part of that. > > Uh, I am confused because the patch at: > > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=950 > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1352874080.4647.0@mofo > > shows "configuration parameter" being moved to <secondary>, though this > commit: > > > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=commitdiff&h=a301eb99c9537186f7dd46ba418e84d755227a94
The discussion yielded a patch that is different from the commit fest entry. We index all GUC settings as <primary><varname>something</varname> configuration parameter</primary> which the commit a301eb99c9537186f7dd46ba418e84d755227a94 also made the case for search_path. Your two commits changed that again. > shows it not as secondary. Would you please suggest a patch or patch > it? Thanks. I think both of your commits should be reverted. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
