Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Simon Riggs (simon@2ndQuadrant.com) wrote:
>> So instead of the typical "reject" instruction we also add a
>> "rejectverbose" instruction that has a more verbose message.
> Erm, so we'd add an option for this? That strikes me as pretty
> excessive.
I think Simon's point was that we'd need a different uaReject enum
value internally in the code, so that the place where the message
gets issued would be able to distinguish explicit REJECT entry from
falling off the end of the file. Changing what the user is expected
to put in the file would be silly. (I don't care for "rejectverbose"
though. Maybe uaImplicitReject for the end-of-file case would be
the most readable way.)
regards, tom lane