On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:53:22PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 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"
