On Feb 10, 2004, at 9:51 AM, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> I have the feeling it wouldn't have been accepted because it was kind
> of 'arbitrary'. It's generally a good idea to ask the -hackers list
> first if a patch is worth writing before actually writing it ;)
Ah well, it was worth the experience.
On Feb 10, 2004, at 10:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> But I'm not eager to support environment variables for things that can
> be set those ways. There are a heck of a lot of SET variables ---
> would
> we want an env var for each one?
I agree; simpler is better and there's already a simple way to do it.
The environment's polluted enough as it is.
thanks,
/s.