On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:35:38PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> This patch makes, in its source code comments and error messages, overly 
> enthusiastic references to the fact that a parameter setting was 
> supposedly "commented".  The only information that is really available, 
> however, is that the parameter setting disappeared from the 
> configuration file, and we should not be making other claims.

Okay, this is an easy fix.

> Another issue that strikes me is that the GUC code apparently makes
> mixed used of palloc and guc_malloc, and this patch continues that.

True, there is some confusion in the GUC code about what allocation routine
should be used. I tried to use the same allocation method as an
already-existing similar allocation.
To lessen this confusion, can you do some cleanup work on the current GUC
code in this area that I can use as a basis for a revised version of the

Did you also do tests on the functional aspects of the patch?


---------------------------(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

Reply via email to