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.
It may be the least messy, ugly approach available, but I concur with
Neil's wish to at least look for other answers.
regards, tom lane
