Tom Lane 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.
I agree that it is sensible to have the setting on the client, and that there should not be too many GUCs. >> I could go and try to convince Npgsql and JDBC to accept patches to >> do that on the client side, but that would be more effort than I >> want to invest. But then there's still closed source software like >> Devart dotConnect... > > This argument reads as nothing except "I'm too lazy to solve it right, > so I want you to accept a wrong solution". In a way, yes, except that I think that "wrong" is exaggerated. As DBA I like to have an option to control things from the server end -- if that's laziness, so be it. So, should I forget about the GUC or is anybody going to back me? I'd still be willing to write a patch for a client-only solution. Yours, Laurenz Albe -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
