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. > > 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.
GUC_REPORT removed. -- 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 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
