Petr Jelinek <petr@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
