Re: VACUUM fails to parse 0 and 1 as boolean value - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: VACUUM fails to parse 0 and 1 as boolean value
Date
Msg-id 20190521151959.dcuxgiyad3khakuj@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: VACUUM fails to parse 0 and 1 as boolean value  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2019-05-21 16:00:25 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Tue, 21 May 2019 14:31:32 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote in
<20190521053132.GG1921@paquier.xyz>
> > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 09:55:59AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > Well, it's confusing that we're not consistent about which spellings
> > > are accepted.  The GUC system accepts true/false, on/off, and 0/1, so
> > > it seems reasonable to me to standardize on that treatment across the
> > > board.  That's not necessarily something we have to do for v12, but
> > > longer-term, consistency is of value.
> > 
> > +1.
> > 
> > Note: boolean GUCs accept a bit more: yes, no, tr, fa, and their upper
> > case flavors, etc.  These are everything parse_bool():bool.c accepts
> > as valid values.
> 
> Yeah, I agree for longer-term. The opinion was short-term
> consideration on v12. We would be able to achieve full
> unification on sub-applications in v13 in that direction. (But I
> don't think it's good that apps pass-through options then server
> checkes them..)

To me it is odd to introduce an option, just to revamp the accepted
style of arguments in the next release. I think we ought to just clean
this up now.

Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Antonin Houska
Date:
Subject: Re: A few more opportunities to use TupleTableSlotOps fields
Next
From: Akim Demaille
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove useless associativity/precedence from parsers