On 26 March 2013 00:30, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 25 March 2013 13:02, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>>> Brendan, how hard would it be to create a GUC for backwards-compatible
>>> behavior?
>
>> Good idea.
>
> No, it *isn't* a good idea. GUCs that change application-visible
> semantics are dangerous. We should have learned this lesson by now.
>
They are? Well okay then. I'm not deeply attached to the GUC thing,
it just seemed like a friendly way to ease the upgrade path. But if
it's dangerous somehow I'm happy to drop it.
Cheers,
BJ