Re: BUG #5656: parameter 'client_min_messages' accept values not listed in enumvals - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: BUG #5656: parameter 'client_min_messages' accept values not listed in enumvals
Date
Msg-id 201009141812.o8EICBK27530@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #5656: parameter 'client_min_messages' accept values not listed in enumvals  (Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>)
Responses Re: BUG #5656: parameter 'client_min_messages' accept values not listed in enumvals  (Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>)
List pgsql-bugs
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> Tom Lane escreveu:
> > "thommy" <der.thommy@gmx.net> writes:
> >> I just came across a small inconsistency:
> >
> >> pg=# select enumvals from pg_settings where name='client_min_messages';
> >>                            enumvals
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >>  {debug5,debug4,debug3,debug2,debug1,log,notice,warning,error}
> >
> > It's intentional that PANIC isn't listed there (nor is FATAL),
> > on the grounds that it's not really a useful setting.
> >
> Fine. But shouldn't we remove these options from docs and/or code?

We are basically reusing the same validation code for this and other
min_messages settings.  Is it worth creating a custom one just for
client_min_messages?  Probably not.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #5656: parameter 'client_min_messages' accept values not listed in enumvals
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #5657: wrong entry in sql_features