Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> This is making things worse, not better. You have just changed the
> >> behavior, and not in a good way. Formerly these were no-ops on
> >> a unix socket connection, and now they can throw errors.
>
> > Is this the proper way to fix the issue? Patch attached.
>
> AFAICS there is no issue, and the code is fine as-is.
>
> Modifying the "get" functions as you propose would be harmless, but it's
> also not an improvement, since it would result in redundant code in the
> functions when those macros aren't defined.
>
> I don't see any real advantage in making the set and get functions
> look slightly more alike. They're doing different things.
OK, thanks for the analysis.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do