On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 9:37 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 02:53:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > (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.)
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 11:23:57PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Attached an updated patch. I kept the name GUC_NO_RESET but I'll
> > change it if we find a better name for it.
>
> I think guc.sql should check that NO_RESET implies NO_RESET_ALL, or otherwise
> guc.c could incorporate that logic by checking (NO_RESET | NO_RESET_ALL)
Agreed. I've attached an updated patch.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
