On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> I have already read the entire thread, and replied only after reading >> all messages. > > Well, what are you replying to then?
Your original message. I'm arguing that we should not change the behavior, as you proposed to do. > There is no GUC used, and > everything is backward compatible. Greg Stark proposed a GUC. I don't think that's a good idea. You proposed to change the behavior in a way that is not backward-compatible. I don't think that's a good idea either. If you are saying that you've dropped those proposals, fine, but I think it's entirely reasonable for me to express my opinion on them. It was not evident to me that the thread had reached any kind of consensus. > Your hyperbole about a new user > being confused is also not helpful. What is this "chaos" you are > talking about? Behavior-changing GUCs are bad news for reasons that have been discussed many times before: they create a requirement that everybody who writes code intended to run on arbitrary PostgreSQL installation be prepared to cater to every possible value of that GUC. pg_size_pretty() is pretty likely to appear in queries that we give users to run on their systems, so it would be a particularly poor choice to make its behavior configurable. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
