Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> The reason it seems of concern for 9.0 is that now we have a custom >> SUSET variable in plpgsql. If we don't fix this then we need to think >> hard about the alternative of forcing the variable into the core code >> to avoid the gotchas.
> Well, having reread your proposed solution, it sounds pretty > reasonable to me. You're never going to be able to make totally > sensible decisions about GUCs if the code that defines those GUCs > isn't loaded, so requiring that the code be loaded before any GUCs are > set seems like a sensible thing to do. On the other hand, if forcing > this into core gets a beta out the door sooner, maybe that's the way > to go, even though I wouldn't exactly classify it as an elegant > solution. > Or to put it another way - this thread has been sitting idle for 5 > months; it's time to make a decision. Well, if there are no other comments, I'll push forward with the fix proposed here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-11/msg00531.php 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
