Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com> writes:
> Yes, supporting all GUC options is something we certainly wouldn't want to
> do by providing a method for each one. Especially since different server
> versions have different options and syntax. I imagine setGUC(String name,
> String value) would be sufficient. I suppose also we would have to be
> aware of GUC options that the driver sets itself (like datestyle and
> client_encoding) to ensure that these are not overwritten.
One minor gripe here: GUC is a server-implementation acronym that really
shouldn't be exposed as part of a client API, because it means nothing
to the average user. Can we do something that refers to "server
parameters" instead?
regards, tom lane
