On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 12:42 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Basically, I want to reject this on the grounds that it's not > useful enough to justify the overhead of marking the "role" GUC > as GUC_REPORT.
I agree with that. I think we need some method for optionally reporting values, so that stuff like this can be handled without adding it to the wire protocol for everyone. I don't think we can just keep adding stuff to the set of things that gets reported for everyone. It doesn't scale. We need a really good reason to enlarge the set of values reported for all users, and I don't think this meets that bar. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
