On 26 March 2013 00:30, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Brendan Jurd <dire...@gmail.com> writes: >> On 25 March 2013 13:02, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >>> Brendan, how hard would it be to create a GUC for backwards-compatible >>> behavior? > >> Good idea. > > No, it *isn't* a good idea. GUCs that change application-visible > semantics are dangerous. We should have learned this lesson by now. >
They are? Well okay then. I'm not deeply attached to the GUC thing, it just seemed like a friendly way to ease the upgrade path. But if it's dangerous somehow I'm happy to drop it. Cheers, BJ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
