Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> Agreed- they're independent considerations and the original concern was
> about the nonzero-to-zero issue, so I'd suggest we address that first,
> though in doing so we will need to consider what *actual* min values we
> should have for some cases which currently allow going to zero for the
> special case and that, I believe, makes this all 9.5 material and allows
> us a bit more freedom in deciding how to hanlde things more generally.
Yeah, I was thinking the same: we should go through the GUCs having zero
as min_val and see if any of them could be tightened up. And I agree
that *all* of this is 9.5 material --- it's not a big enough deal to
risk changing behaviors in a minor release.
regards, tom lane
