"Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> what is problematic on GUC?
Basically, it's a bad idea to have GUCs that silently make significant
changes in the syntactic meaning of a query. We've learned that lesson
the hard way I think. There are places where we've been forced to do
it because of priority-one considerations like standards compatibility
(eg, standard_conforming_strings). This proposed feature doesn't carry
anywhere near the weight that would make me willing to put in another
such wart.
regards, tom lane
