Re: BUG #5656: parameter 'client_min_messages' accept values not listed in enumvals

Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com> writes:
> Tom Lane escreveu:
>> ISTM your
>> argument can be reduced to "there should be no hidden values ever", but
>> I doubt we're going to buy that.

> No, the "hidden values" has their use case (hiding legal values that we don't
> want to expose, for example, true/false, 0/1, yes/no).

Right ... that's exactly what these are, IMO.

            regards, tom lane