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.
> 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.

GUC_REPORT removed.

  Bruce Momjian   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to