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.
> 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.
> 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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
