Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 15:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> > > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > >> Could we report both?
> >
> > > Yes, we could easily do that if we want to.
> >
> > It would be entirely silly to do so, since (a) the old value hasn't
> > been changed if we fail here, and (b) it's irrelevant to the nature
> > of the error.
>
> That's reasonable. If it is impossible to set it to an
> impossible/failing value then that is even better.
>
> Magnus seems to say it is possible to set this and then have it fail
> later when it is used. Not sure which is correct.
It shouldn't ever happen. It happened here because there was a bug in
my original patch, that has now been fixed. So unless there are more
bugs in it, it is now back to can't happen.
//Magnus
