Обсуждение: BUG #5656: parameter 'client_min_messages' accept values not listed in enumvals
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 5656 Logged by: thommy Email address: der.thommy@gmx.net PostgreSQL version: 9.0rc1 Operating system: Windows Description: parameter 'client_min_messages' accept values not listed in enumvals Details: Hi there, I just came across a small inconsistency: pg=# select enumvals from pg_settings where name='client_min_messages'; enumvals --------------------------------------------------------------- {debug5,debug4,debug3,debug2,debug1,log,notice,warning,error} Hmm, according to the documentation 'panic' is a valid value... pg=# select set_config('client_min_messages', 'PANIC', false); set_config ------------ panic pg=# select name, setting, enumvals from pg_settings where name='client_min_messages'; -[ RECORD 1 ]----------------------------------------------------------- name | client_min_messages setting | panic enumvals | {debug5,debug4,debug3,debug2,debug1,log,notice,warning,error} Maybe this can be fixed before the final release of 9.0 Regards, thommy
"thommy" <der.thommy@gmx.net> writes: > I just came across a small inconsistency: > pg=# select enumvals from pg_settings where name='client_min_messages'; > enumvals > --------------------------------------------------------------- > {debug5,debug4,debug3,debug2,debug1,log,notice,warning,error} It's intentional that PANIC isn't listed there (nor is FATAL), on the grounds that it's not really a useful setting. regards, tom lane
Re: BUG #5656: parameter 'client_min_messages' accept values not listed in enumvals
От
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
Дата:
Tom Lane escreveu: > "thommy" <der.thommy@gmx.net> writes: >> I just came across a small inconsistency: > >> pg=# select enumvals from pg_settings where name='client_min_messages'; >> enumvals >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> {debug5,debug4,debug3,debug2,debug1,log,notice,warning,error} > > It's intentional that PANIC isn't listed there (nor is FATAL), > on the grounds that it's not really a useful setting. > Fine. But shouldn't we remove these options from docs and/or code? -- Euler Taveira de Oliveira http://www.timbira.com/
Re: BUG #5656: parameter 'client_min_messages' accept values not listed in enumvals
От
Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote: > Tom Lane escreveu: > > "thommy" <der.thommy@gmx.net> writes: > >> I just came across a small inconsistency: > > > >> pg=# select enumvals from pg_settings where name='client_min_messages'; > >> enumvals > >> --------------------------------------------------------------- > >> {debug5,debug4,debug3,debug2,debug1,log,notice,warning,error} > > > > It's intentional that PANIC isn't listed there (nor is FATAL), > > on the grounds that it's not really a useful setting. > > > Fine. But shouldn't we remove these options from docs and/or code? We are basically reusing the same validation code for this and other min_messages settings. Is it worth creating a custom one just for client_min_messages? Probably not. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Re: BUG #5656: parameter 'client_min_messages' accept values not listed in enumvals
От
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
Дата:
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. -- Euler Taveira de Oliveira http://www.timbira.com/
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
Re: BUG #5656: parameter 'client_min_messages' accept values not listed in enumvals
От
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
Дата:
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). My point is if they are not useful let's rip them to not confuse people. -- Euler Taveira de Oliveira http://www.timbira.com/
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