Tom Lane wrote:
> (a) Nobody but me is afraid of the consequences of treating this as
> a GUC. (I still think you're all wrong, but so be it.)
>
I can't say I'm happy about it. For one thing, the granularity seems all
wrong. I'd rather be able to keep backwards compatibility on a function
by function basis. Or would the value of the GUC at the time the
function was created stick?
> What are the probabilities that the OpenACSes of the world will just
> set the value to "backward compatible" instead of touching their code?
>
Quite high, I should say.
cheers
andrew
