Hi, On 2019-05-21 16:00:25 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Tue, 21 May 2019 14:31:32 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> > wrote in <20190521053132.gg1...@paquier.xyz> > > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 09:55:59AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > Well, it's confusing that we're not consistent about which spellings > > > are accepted. The GUC system accepts true/false, on/off, and 0/1, so > > > it seems reasonable to me to standardize on that treatment across the > > > board. That's not necessarily something we have to do for v12, but > > > longer-term, consistency is of value. > > > > +1. > > > > Note: boolean GUCs accept a bit more: yes, no, tr, fa, and their upper > > case flavors, etc. These are everything parse_bool():bool.c accepts > > as valid values. > > Yeah, I agree for longer-term. The opinion was short-term > consideration on v12. We would be able to achieve full > unification on sub-applications in v13 in that direction. (But I > don't think it's good that apps pass-through options then server > checkes them..)
To me it is odd to introduce an option, just to revamp the accepted style of arguments in the next release. I think we ought to just clean this up now. Greetings, Andres Freund
