Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> I had the same thought, but I just realized that's probably
> unfriendly: at the point when the client is assembling the list of
> names to send to the server, it doesn't know the server version. I
> think we're probably best off assuming that any names we don't
> recognize are something that got added in a newer server version and
> just ignoring them. The client is not powerless to sort this out
> after-the-fact: once the connection is made, they'll know the server
> version and also have the option to interrogate pg_settings if they
> wish.
> We also need to think about how to write a test for this patch...
All of the above is based on the assumption that this isn't a plain
old USERSET GUC, which I'm not really seeing the argument for.
OK, there might be *implementation* reasons why we would rather not
deal with on-the-fly changes to the list, but there's no advantage
to users in it.
regards, tom lane
