Re: Remove redundant extra_desc info for enum GUC variables? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: Remove redundant extra_desc info for enum GUC variables?
Date
Msg-id 20080528111010.0e94fff1@mha-laptop.hagander.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Remove redundant extra_desc info for enum GUC variables?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Remove redundant extra_desc info for enum GUC variables?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> >> One point of interest is that for client_min_messages and
> >> log_min_messages, the ordering of the values has significance, and
> >> it's different for the two cases.
> 
> > Is there any actual reason why they're supposed to be treated
> > differently?
> 
> Yeah: LOG level sorts differently in the two cases; it's fairly high
> priority for server log output and much lower for client output.

Ok, easy fix if we break them apart. Should we continue to accept
values that we're not going to care about, or should I change that at
the same time? (for example, client_min_messages doesn't use INFO,
but we do accept that in <= 8.3 anyway)

//Magnus


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: Hiding undocumented enum values?
Next
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Hint Bits and Write I/O