Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I think part of the reason we ended up with the protocol parameters =
> GUCs thing is because you seemed to be concurring with that approach
> upthread. I think it was Jelte's idea originally, but I interpreted
> some of your earlier remarks to be supporting it. I'm not sure whether
> you've revised your opinion, or just refined it, or whether we
> misinterpreted your earlier remarks.
I don't recall exactly what I thought earlier, but now I think we'd
be better off with separate infrastructure. guc.c is unduly complex
already. Perhaps there are bits of it that could be factored out
and shared, but I bet not a lot.
regards, tom lane