Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> writes:
> I've attached a draft patch for discussion.
Hm, I think that trying to RESET a GUC_NO_RESET variable ought to
actively throw an error. Silently doing nothing will look like
a bug.
(This does imply that it's not sensible to mark a variable
GUC_NO_RESET without also saying GUC_NO_RESET_ALL. That
seems fine to me, because I'm not sure what the combination
GUC_NO_RESET & !GUC_NO_RESET_ALL ought to mean.)
regards, tom lane
