"Kevin Grittner" wrote: Tom Lane wrote: >> I agree it's a bug that you can do what Kevin's example shows. > > I'll look at it and see if I can pull together a patch. Attached. Basically, if a GUC has a check function, this patch causes it to be run on a RESET just like it is on a SET, to make sure that the resulting value is valid to set within the context. Some messages needed adjustment. While I was there, I made cod a little more consistent among related GUCs. I also added a little to the regression tests to cover this. -Kevin
check-reset-v1.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
