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 argumen
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 ba
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 o
Tom Lane wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes:
> > Add new variable "server_version_num", which is almost the same as
> > "server_version" but uses the handy PG_VERSION_NUM which allows apps to
> > do things like if ($version >= 80200) without having to parse apart the
> > value of ser
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes:
> Add new variable "server_version_num", which is almost the same as
> "server_version" but uses the handy PG_VERSION_NUM which allows apps to
> do things like if ($version >= 80200) without having to parse apart the
> value of server_version themselves.
I
