On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Beena Emerson <memissemer...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > >> I don't think that this is going in the good direction, what was >> suggested mainly by Robert was to use a micro-language that would >> allow far more extensibility that what you are proposing. > > I agree, the micro-language would give far more extensibility. However, as > stated before, the previous discussions concluded that GUC was a preferred > way because it is more user-friendly.
Er, I am not sure I follow here. The idea proposed was to define a string formatted with some infra-language within the existing GUC s_s_names. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
