On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 09:11:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Michael Paquier >> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:24 AM, FabrÃzio de Royes Mello >> > <fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> Well, it's fairly harmless, but it might not be a bad idea to tighten >> >>> that >> >>> up. >> >> The attached patch tighten that up. >> > Hm... It might be interesting to include it in 9.4 IMO, somewhat >> > grouping with what has been done in a6542a4 for SET and ABORT. >> >> Meh. There will always be another thing we could squeeze in; I don't >> think this is particularly urgent, and it's late to the party. > > Do we want this patch for 9.5? It throws an error for invalid reloption > specifications.
Fine with me. But I have a vague recollection of seeing pg_upgrade doing this on purpose to create TOAST tables or something... am I misremembering? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
