Tom Lane wrote: > Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Since the flawed code is now in beta, it will need to be fixed. Do people > > like the above solution or should I just revert to having a seperate > > function for each GUC variable affected? > > I do not see a good reason why "fatal" and "off" shouldn't be allowed > values for all three message variables. If we just did that, then you'd > be back to sharable code.
I recommended he only allow valid values for each variable. I think if we say we only support values X,Y,Z we had better throw an error if it anything else. > BTW, is it a good idea for server_min_messages and > log_min_error_statement to be PGC_USERSET? I could see an argument that > they should be PGC_SIGHUP, ie, settable only by the admin. As it is, > any user can hide his activity from the logs. OTOH, in the past we've > allowed anyone to change the debug level, and there haven't been > complaints about it. > > There's some value in being able to kick the log level up a notch for > a specific session, but knocking it down from the admin's default could > be considered a bad thing. I suppose we could invent a PGC_SIGHUP > "min_server_min_messages" variable that sets a minimum value below which > the user can't set server_min_messages. Does that seem like a good > idea, or overkill? Seems a new GUC variable seems like overkill to me, and I think we need to allow it to be raised. I think we can make server_min_messages PGC_SUSET so only the admin can change it. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
