Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Hmm, the first thought that comes to mind is that the GucContext param
> to ParseConfigFile is unused and can be removed. This is probably an
> oversight from when include files were introduced in 2006.
Thanks for caring about that part.
> I don't like the fact that this code handles custom_variable_classes
> internally. I think this would be exposed to the parsing of extension
> control files, which is obviously wrong.
Well, in fact, not that much. The extension code has a special error
case when dealing with custom variables if the class hasn't been already
parsed, and what ParseConfigFile() is doing is pushing the
custom_variable_classes setting in front of the list.
guc-file.l says: /* * This variable must be processed first as it controls * the validity of
othervariables; so it goes at the head * of the result list. If we already found a value for it, *
replacewith this one. */
extension.c says: ereport(ERROR, (errmsg("Unsupported parameter '%s' in file: %s",
tok1, filename), errhint("Be sure to have 'custom_variable_classes' set "
"in a line before any custom variable.")));
So if we don't change the code in ParseConfigFile() that will push
custom_variable_classes in front of the list, all I have to change in
the extension.c file is the error message.
I fail to see a future usage of custom_variable_classes where it
wouldn't help to have that in the list before any user setting that
depends on it.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
