On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 8:13 AM Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> So here is a patch. This does what I had in mind as a use case.
> Obviously, the naming and wording can be tuned. Input from other
> vendors is welcome.
I'm not a different vendor, but I do work on different code than you
do, and I like this. Advanced Server accidentally dodges this problem
at present by shipping with a different FUNC_MAX_ARGS value, but this
is much cleaner.
Would it be reasonable to consider something similar for the control
file, for the benefit of distributions that are not the same on disk?
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
