Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>> Yeah. custom_variable_classes is a pretty annoying wart, but if it's >>> set to the default value (namely, empty) then it actually does prevent >>> people from setting bajillions of completely pointless settings, which >>> seems like it has some merit.
>> Well, that argument was essentially why we put it in to begin with. >> But I think pretty much everybody agrees that it's more trouble than >> it's worth (in fact, weren't you one of the people complaining about >> it?) > Well, yes. But I was arguing that we should replace the leaky dam > with one that's watertight, rather than demolishing the dam. If we had some idea how to do that, I'd probably agree. But we don't. In any case, custom_variable_classes as currently defined is not the basis for a solution to that desire, and removing it won't create an impediment to solving the problem properly, should we come up with a solution. (This is, however, a good reason for continuing to not document that you can create random GUC variables --- we might someday shut that off again.) 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