Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> (a) Nobody but me is afraid of the consequences of treating this as
>> a GUC. (I still think you're all wrong, but so be it.)
> I'm afraid of it, I'm just not sure I have a better idea. It wouldn't
> bother me a bit if we made the only available behavior "throw an
> error", but I'm afraid it will bother someone else.
> Is there a chance we could make this a GUC, but only allow it to be
> changed at the function level, with no way to override the server
> default? It seems to me that the chances of blowing up the world
> would be a lot lower that way, though possibly still not low enough.
I don't particularly care to invent a new GUC class just for this,
but if we think the issue is important enough, we could
(a) make the GUC superuser-only
(b) invent a #option or similar syntax to override the GUC per-function.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
