Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> writes:
> The only thing stopping me from committing this right now is Tom's upthread
> objection about adding more GUCs that just expose values that you can't
> actually set. If that objection still stands, I'll withdraw this patch
> (and maybe try introducing a new way to surface this information someday).
It still feels to me like not a great way to go about it. Having
said that, it's not like we don't have any existing examples of
the category, so I won't cry hard if I'm outvoted.
regards, tom lane
