"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
>> I agree it's a bug that you can do what Kevin's example shows.
>
> I'll look at it and see if I can pull together a patch.
Attached.
Basically, if a GUC has a check function, this patch causes it to be
run on a RESET just like it is on a SET, to make sure that the
resulting value is valid to set within the context. Some messages
needed adjustment. While I was there, I made cod a little more
consistent among related GUCs.
I also added a little to the regression tests to cover this.
-Kevin
