On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:35:38PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > This patch makes, in its source code comments and error messages, overly > enthusiastic references to the fact that a parameter setting was > supposedly "commented". The only information that is really available, > however, is that the parameter setting disappeared from the > configuration file, and we should not be making other claims.
Okay, this is an easy fix. > Another issue that strikes me is that the GUC code apparently makes > mixed used of palloc and guc_malloc, and this patch continues that. True, there is some confusion in the GUC code about what allocation routine should be used. I tried to use the same allocation method as an already-existing similar allocation. To lessen this confusion, can you do some cleanup work on the current GUC code in this area that I can use as a basis for a revised version of the patch? Did you also do tests on the functional aspects of the patch? Joachim ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match