Tom Lane wrote: > I'd be less unhappy with this patch if the variable were not marked > GUC_REPORT. That is what gives it nontrivial cost: it's adding a couple > dozen bytes to every connection startup exchange, for data that's 100% > redundant with data already being transmitted.
Wow, that is bad. > The arguments that were made in favor of this patch cited its possible > use in SQL scripts, but there is no need for the variable to be marked > GUC_REPORT for that usage. Agreed, will update. We can always change it later. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
