On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:53:22PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't think we ever discussed it, but it seemed logical and a minimal > > change to the code. We already have a GUC write of non-default values > > for exec and no one had issues with that. > > You can hardly claim that "no one had issues with that". I complained > about it and I think other people did too. It's a messy, ugly approach; > moreover we have no field experience that says it's reliable.
Don't the FSM and the system catalog cache use a similar mechanism? -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "Limítate a mirar... y algun día veras" ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
