On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >>> [ reasons ] > >> I agree with these reasons. We don't get charged $0.50 per GUC, so >> there's no particular reason to contort things to have fewer of them. > > Well, there definitely is a distributed cost to each additional GUC. > Peter's given what are probably adequate reasons to add several of them > here, but that doesn't mean we should not ask the question whether each > new GUC is really necessary.
No argument. I'm merely saying that I think the rationale for these GUCs is solid enough to justify their existence. -- 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
