On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 01:53:25PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@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.
That's why I was asking you to comment on the final patch, which I am
planning to apply to PG 10 soon.
> > 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.
Uh, the patch was the consensus, as I had several versions. It was not
clear from your email what you thought of the patch, or if your comments
applied to the final patch at all. The email you quoted was mine, but
from a very early stage in the discussion.
> > 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.
There is no question on that point.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
