On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> I don't think that this is going in the good direction, what was
>> suggested mainly by Robert was to use a micro-language that would
>> allow far more extensibility that what you are proposing.
>
> I agree, the micro-language would give far more extensibility. However, as
> stated before, the previous discussions concluded that GUC was a preferred
> way because it is more user-friendly.
Er, I am not sure I follow here. The idea proposed was to define a
string formatted with some infra-language within the existing GUC
s_s_names.
--
Michael
