On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 12:23:19PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > TBH, I don't want to do that. I think it's too fragile. It's the sort > of thing that just barely works given the exact behavior of these > particular GUCs, but it relies on a bunch of subtle assumptions which > won't be evident to future readers of the code. People will very > possibly copy this barely-working code into other contexts where it > doesn't work at all, or they'll think the code implementing this is > buggy even if it isn't.
Agreed. If there was really no other option, it would at the very least need a humongous comment that explained why it worked in this specific case and is unlikely to work in others. But it sounds like we have another choice... -- nathan
