On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 12:42 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Basically, I want to reject this on the grounds that it's not
> useful enough to justify the overhead of marking the "role" GUC
> as GUC_REPORT.
I agree with that. I think we need some method for optionally
reporting values, so that stuff like this can be handled without
adding it to the wire protocol for everyone. I don't think we can just
keep adding stuff to the set of things that gets reported for
everyone. It doesn't scale. We need a really good reason to enlarge
the set of values reported for all users, and I don't think this meets
that bar.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com