Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Marko Kreen <mark...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Now that I think about it, same applies to bytea_output?
> Probably so. But I think we need not introduce quite so many new > threads on this patch. This is, I think, at least thread #4, and > that's making the discussion hard to follow. Well, this is independent of the proposed patch, so I think a separate thread is okay. The question is "shouldn't bytea_output be marked GUC_REPORT"? I think that probably it should be, though I wonder whether we're not too late. Clients relying on it to be transmitted are not going to work with existing 9.0 or 9.1 releases; so maybe changing it to be reported going forward would just make things worse. 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