Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 16:27, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> It's hard to argue about this when most of us have no idea what these > >> "system defaults" are, or whether they really are any different from the > >> RFC values in the first place, or whether ordinary users know how to > >> alter them or even find out their values. ?Please provide some > >> background if you want intelligent comments. > > > The system defaults are whatever the user has configured at a machine > > level (by editing the registry, by hand or by tool (including > > policies)). I doubt many users have configured them by hand. There may > > well be tools that do it for them. > > But you previously stated that this code was ignoring the registry > values. So doesn't "system defaults" boil down to whatever Windows' > wired-in defaults are?
For Magnus, #2 was to use the RFC defaults. The OS defaults might be different for different versions of Windows. We could use the OS defaults for _some_ version of Windows, but I am not sure that is an improvement. I still like #1 because it affects the fewest people, and that option uses the RFC defaults only for unset values when others are set. I still think we can do #3 (error), but we have to add a check in an unrelated place to check for unset values, and the code is likely to be ugly. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
