On 2013.03.25 5:55 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 03/25/2013 10:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, they are, because things break when they're set wrong.
> They also make debugging and support harder; you need to get an
> ever-growing list of GUC values from the user to figure out what their
> query does. bytea_output, standard_conforming_strings, etc. Yick.
>
> That said, I don't have a better answer for introducing non-BC changes.
Given the general trouble GUC values cause, is there a plan to deprecate and
remove each of the existing ones over time? As long as post-removal there isn't
any actual loss of functionality, but users might have to change their code to
do it "the one true way", that would seem a good thing. -- Darren Duncan
