On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:27:02AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 09:11:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Michael Paquier > >> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:24 AM, FabrÃzio de Royes Mello > >> > <fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >>> Well, it's fairly harmless, but it might not be a bad idea to tighten > >> >>> that > >> >>> up. > >> >> The attached patch tighten that up. > >> > Hm... It might be interesting to include it in 9.4 IMO, somewhat > >> > grouping with what has been done in a6542a4 for SET and ABORT. > >> > >> Meh. There will always be another thing we could squeeze in; I don't > >> think this is particularly urgent, and it's late to the party. > > > > Do we want this patch for 9.5? It throws an error for invalid reloption > > specifications. > > Fine with me. But I have a vague recollection of seeing pg_upgrade > doing this on purpose to create TOAST tables or something... am I > misremembering?
Yes, you remember well. I will have to find a different way for pg_upgrade to call a no-op ALTER TABLE, which is fine. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
