In response to "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Bill Moran wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Bill Moran wrote: > >> > + if (trace_temp_files != -1) > >> > > >> > >> Might be more robust to say > >> > >> if (trace_temp_files >= 0) > > > > Because it would allow for the easy addition of more negative numbers > > with magic value? > > because ISTM any negative number here should mean no action is to be > taken. Otherwise how else is it different from 0?
?? I specified in the GUC config that minimum allowable value is -1. /usr/local/etc/rc.d/postgresql start FATAL: -5 is outside the valid range for parameter "trace_temp_files" (-1 .. 2147483647) set trace_temp_files to -8; ERROR: -8 is outside the valid range for parameter "trace_temp_files" (-1 .. 2147483647) Perhaps there's another reason to use the >= 0 check, but handling invalid values with POLA doesn't seem to be a good one. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match