Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I kind of agree with Thom. I understand why it's doing what it's
> doing, but it still seems sort of lame.
Well, the point of the message is to report that we failed to apply
all the settings requested by the file. If you prefer some wording
squishier than "error", we could bikeshed the message phrasing.
But I don't think we should suppress the message entirely; nor does
it seem worthwhile to try to track whether all the failures were of
precisely this type.
regards, tom lane
