On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 05:10:14PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/25/13 1:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 01:46:46PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> This matter was already closed:
> >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=949
> >>
> >> It looks like your patch reverts part of that.
> >
> > Uh, I am confused because the patch at:
> >
> > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=950
> > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1352874080.4647.0@mofo
> >
> > shows "configuration parameter" being moved to <secondary>, though this
> > commit:
> >
> > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=commitdiff&h=a301eb99c9537186f7dd46ba418e84d755227a94
>
> The discussion yielded a patch that is different from the commit fest entry.
>
> We index all GUC settings as
>
> <primary><varname>something</varname> configuration parameter</primary>
>
> which the commit a301eb99c9537186f7dd46ba418e84d755227a94 also made the case for search_path.
>
> Your two commits changed that again.
>
> > shows it not as secondary. Would you please suggest a patch or patch
> > it? Thanks.
>
> I think both of your commits should be reverted.
I now see the pattern. Thanks. Patches reverted.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +