Re: Overhauling GUCS

"Greg Smith" <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:

> 1) Is it worthwhile to expand the information stored in the GUC structure to
> make it better capable of supporting machine generation and to provide more
> information for tool authors via pg_settings?  The exact fields that should or
> shouldn't be included remains controversial; consider "default value",
> "per-session/runtime/restart", and "enum lists" as the list of things that are
> most needed there.

Isn't that a list of what's *already* there?

--  Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!