Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Yeah. �custom_variable_classes is a pretty annoying wart, but if it's
>>> set to the default value (namely, empty) then it actually does prevent
>>> people from setting bajillions of completely pointless settings, which
>>> seems like it has some merit.
>> Well, that argument was essentially why we put it in to begin with.
>> But I think pretty much everybody agrees that it's more trouble than
>> it's worth (in fact, weren't you one of the people complaining about
>> it?)
> Well, yes. But I was arguing that we should replace the leaky dam
> with one that's watertight, rather than demolishing the dam.
If we had some idea how to do that, I'd probably agree. But we don't.
In any case, custom_variable_classes as currently defined is not the
basis for a solution to that desire, and removing it won't create an
impediment to solving the problem properly, should we come up with
a solution.
(This is, however, a good reason for continuing to not document that
you can create random GUC variables --- we might someday shut that
off again.)
regards, tom lane