"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > what is problematic on GUC?
Basically, it's a bad idea to have GUCs that silently make significant changes in the syntactic meaning of a query. We've learned that lesson the hard way I think. There are places where we've been forced to do it because of priority-one considerations like standards compatibility (eg, standard_conforming_strings). This proposed feature doesn't carry anywhere near the weight that would make me willing to put in another such wart. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers