On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > But in any case, my objection is that there's no adequate use-case > for this GUC, because it's much more sensible to set it from the client > side. We have too many GUCs already --- Josh B regularly goes on the > warpath looking for ones we can remove. This one should never get in > there to start with.
Of course, we also have no shortage of connection parameters. -- 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
