Tom Lane 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 can't say I'm happy about it. For one thing, the granularity seems all wrong. I'd rather be able to keep backwards compatibility on a function by function basis. Or would the value of the GUC at the time the function was created stick?
What are the probabilities that the OpenACSes of the world will just set the value to "backward compatible" instead of touching their code?
Quite high, I should say. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
