Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't think we ever discussed it, but it seemed logical and a minimal > > change to the code. We already have a GUC write of non-default values > > for exec and no one had issues with that. > > You can hardly claim that "no one had issues with that". I complained > about it and I think other people did too. It's a messy, ugly approach; > moreover we have no field experience that says it's reliable. > > It may be the least messy, ugly approach available, but I concur with > Neil's wish to at least look for other answers.
Absolutely. I am not happy with the GUC file either, but can't see a better way right now. I have already documented your concern about the GUC race condition issue on the Win32 status page so we will not forget about it. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
