Re: [HACKERS] Remove redundant extra_desc info for enum GUC variables?

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah: LOG level sorts differently in the two cases; it's fairly high
>> priority for server log output and much lower for client output.

> Ok, easy fix if we break them apart. Should we continue to accept
> values that we're not going to care about, or should I change that at
> the same time? (for example, client_min_messages doesn't use INFO,
> but we do accept that in <= 8.3 anyway)

I'd be inclined to keep the actual behavior the same as it was.
We didn't document INFO for this variable, perhaps, but it's accepted
and has a well-defined behavior.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers