Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> writes:
> If there are no false positives, turning it on is zero impact
> (except for any performance impact involved in detecting the
> condition) for those who have no problems. That will probably be
> the vast majority of users. The question is, do we want to quietly
> do something new and different for the small percentage of users
> who will have a problem, and leave it to them to find out about
> this setting and turn on the feature that tells them where the
> problems are? Or would it be more friendly to show the issues so
> they can resolve them, and then turn off the warnings once they are
> satisfied?
FWIW, there *are* some especially-corner-casey false positives,
as I noted upthread. I think the odds of people hitting them
are remarkably low, which is why I wasn't willing to invest the
additional code needed to try to make them all go away. I doubt
that this consideration is worth worrying about as we decide
whether the warnings should be on by default ... but if you're
going to make an argument from an assumption of no false positives,
it's wrong.
regards, tom lane