Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is making things worse, not better. You have just changed the
>> behavior, and not in a good way. Formerly these were no-ops on
>> a unix socket connection, and now they can throw errors.
> Is this the proper way to fix the issue? Patch attached.
AFAICS there is no issue, and the code is fine as-is.
Modifying the "get" functions as you propose would be harmless, but it's
also not an improvement, since it would result in redundant code in the
functions when those macros aren't defined.
I don't see any real advantage in making the set and get functions
look slightly more alike. They're doing different things.
regards, tom lane
