Re: GUC_REPORT for protocol tunables was: Re: Optimize binary serialization format of arrays with fixed size elements

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Now that I think about it, same applies to bytea_output?

> Probably so.  But I think we need not introduce quite so many new
> threads on this patch.  This is, I think, at least thread #4, and
> that's making the discussion hard to follow.

Well, this is independent of the proposed patch, so I think a separate
thread is okay.  The question is "shouldn't bytea_output be marked
GUC_REPORT"?  I think that probably it should be, though I wonder
whether we're not too late.  Clients relying on it to be transmitted are
not going to work with existing 9.0 or 9.1 releases; so maybe changing
it to be reported going forward would just make things worse.
        regards, tom lane