Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd be less unhappy with this patch if the variable were not marked
> GUC_REPORT. That is what gives it nontrivial cost: it's adding a couple
> dozen bytes to every connection startup exchange, for data that's 100%
> redundant with data already being transmitted.
Wow, that is bad.
> The arguments that were made in favor of this patch cited its possible
> use in SQL scripts, but there is no need for the variable to be marked
> GUC_REPORT for that usage.
Agreed, will update. We can always change it later.
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
