On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 at 12:47, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> Normally we add some enable_* GUC to leave an escape hatch when we add
> some new feature like this. I likely should have done that when I
> added 1349d279, but I didn't and I want to now.
>
> I mainly just shifted this discussion out of [1] as we normally like
> to debate GUC names and I feel that the discussion over on the other
> thread is buried a little too deep to be visible to most people.
>
> Can anyone think of a better name? Or does anyone see error with my ambition?
I've now pushed this.
I'm still happy to consider other names if anyone has any good ideas,
but so far it's all quiet here, so I've assumed that's a good thing.
David
