Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 19/03/14 19:26, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> I think this should have the GUC_LIST_INPUT flag, and ensure that when >> multiple values are passed, we can process them all in a sane fashion.
> Well, as we said with Marko in the original thread, the proper handling > is left for whoever wants to add additional parameters, for the current > implementation proper list handling is not really needed and it will > only server to increase complexity of this simple patch quite late in > the release cycle. TBH, if I thought this specific warning was the only one that would ever be there, I'd probably be arguing to reject this patch altogether. Isn't the entire point to create a framework in which more tests will be added later? Also, adding GUC_LIST_INPUT later is not really cool since it changes the parsing behavior for the GUC. If it's going to be a list, it should be one from day zero. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers