Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd be less unhappy with this patch if the variable were not marked
> GUC_REPORT.  That is what gives it nontrivial cost: it's adding a couple
> dozen bytes to every connection startup exchange, for data that's 100%
> redundant with data already being transmitted.

Wow, that is bad.

> The arguments that were made in favor of this patch cited its possible
> use in SQL scripts, but there is no need for the variable to be marked
> GUC_REPORT for that usage.

Agreed, will update.  We can always change it later.

  Bruce Momjian   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to