On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 21:49 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 15:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> > > > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > >> Could we report both?
> > >
> > > > Yes, we could easily do that if we want to.
> > >
> > > It would be entirely silly to do so, since (a) the old value hasn't
> > > been changed if we fail here, and (b) it's irrelevant to the nature
> > > of the error.
> >
> > That's reasonable. If it is impossible to set it to an
> > impossible/failing value then that is even better.
> >
> > Magnus seems to say it is possible to set this and then have it fail
> > later when it is used. Not sure which is correct.
>
> It shouldn't ever happen. It happened here because there was a bug in
> my original patch, that has now been fixed. So unless there are more
> bugs in it, it is now back to can't happen.
OK, good. Just checking it won't ever happen to me ;-)
(and if it does, I have a backout plan).
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com