On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> Yeah. custom_variable_classes is a pretty annoying wart, but if it's >>>> set to the default value (namely, empty) then it actually does prevent >>>> people from setting bajillions of completely pointless settings, which >>>> seems like it has some merit. > >>> Well, that argument was essentially why we put it in to begin with. >>> But I think pretty much everybody agrees that it's more trouble than >>> it's worth (in fact, weren't you one of the people complaining about >>> it?) > >> Well, yes. But I was arguing that we should replace the leaky dam >> with one that's watertight, rather than demolishing the dam. > > If we had some idea how to do that, I'd probably agree. But we don't. > In any case, custom_variable_classes as currently defined is not the > basis for a solution to that desire, and removing it won't create an > impediment to solving the problem properly, should we come up with > a solution.
Yeah, that's why I'm not complaining too loudly. :-) > (This is, however, a good reason for continuing to not document that > you can create random GUC variables --- we might someday shut that > off again.) Or maybe better still would be to explicitly document the fact that behavior in this area should not be relied upon. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
