Euler Taveira de Oliveira <eu...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs