Petr Jelinek <> 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 (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to