Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar jul 19 12:09:24 -0400 2011:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> If you mean the business about allowing GUCs in postgresql.conf to be
> >> applied even if there are semantic errors elsewhere, I'm just as happy
> >> to let Alexey or Florian have a go at it first, if they want. The real
> >> question at the moment is do we have consensus about changing that?
> >> Because if we do, the submitted patch is certainly not something to
> >> commit as-is, and should be marked Returned With Feedback.
>
> > I'm not totally convinced. The proposed patch is pretty small, and
> > seems to stand on its own two feet. I don't hear anyone objecting to
> > your proposed plan, but OTOH it doesn't strike me as such a good plan
> > that we should reject all other improvements in the meantime. Maybe
> > I'm missing something...
>
> To me, the proposed patch adds another layer of contortionism on top of
> code that's already logically messy. I find it pretty ugly, and would
> prefer to try to simplify the code before not after we attempt to deal
> with the feature the patch wants to add.
+1. Alexey stated that he would get back on this patch for reworks.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
