Tom Lane wrote:
> The main thing I would be worried about is whether you're sure
> that you have separated the RESET-as-a-command case from the cases
> where we actually are rolling back to a previous state.
It looks good to me. I added a few regression tests for that.
Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Agreed. I'm not sure we want to change the message text at all in
> 9.1. Translations and all that.
Agreed. I think we definitely don't want to do that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
>> That is unfortunate. I guess it points out the value of adding a
>> comment to point out why we would want to check these values even
>> on a reset to a previously-used value.
>
> +1 for such a comment.
Will do.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> That is unfortunate. I guess it points out the value of adding a
> comment to point out why we would want to check these values even on
> a reset to a previously-used value.
+1 for such a comment.
>> I assume that you're thinking we'd onl
Tom Lane wrote:
> The main thing I would be worried about is whether you're sure
> that you have separated the RESET-as-a-command case from the cases
> where we actually are rolling back to a previous state.
I will double-check that, and make sure there is regression test
coverage of that case
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> This patch makes me a little nervous, because the existing
>> behavior seems to have been coded for quite deliberately.
> It does, although I'm not clear *why* it was. I suspect it may have
> been based on an assumption that whatever value is in
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
>> "Kevin Grittner" wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
I agree it's a bug that you can do what Kevin's example shows.
>>>
>>> I'll look at it and see if I can pull together a patch.
>>
>> Attached.
>>
>> Basically, if a
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>> I agree it's a bug that you can do what Kevin's example shows.
>>
>> I'll look at it and see if I can pull together a patch.
>
> Attached.
>
> Basically, if a GUC has a check function, this pa
