Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com> writes:
> Bruce Momjian escreveu:
>> We are basically reusing the same validation code for this and other
>> min_messages settings.
>>
> No, we have two enums ({client,server}_message_level_options); I don't
> understand why we should have these options in client_min_messages enum.
I believe the reasoning was that we shouldn't arbitrarily refuse values
that have a legal interpretation, but that we should hide them in the
pg_settings view if they aren't especially sensible to use. You might
care to go back and consult the archives for the discussions that led up
to putting a "hidden value" feature into the guc-enum code. ISTM your
argument can be reduced to "there should be no hidden values ever", but
I doubt we're going to buy that.
regards, tom lane