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