Tom Lane wrote:
> But in any case, my objection is that there's no adequate use-case
> for this GUC, because it's much more sensible to set it from the
client
> side. We have too many GUCs already --- Josh B regularly goes on the
> warpath looking for ones we can remove. This one should never get in
> there to start with.
I agree that it is sensible to have the setting on the client,
and that there should not be too many GUCs.
>> I could go and try to convince Npgsql and JDBC to accept patches to
>> do that on the client side, but that would be more effort than I
>> want to invest. But then there's still closed source software like
>> Devart dotConnect...
>
> This argument reads as nothing except "I'm too lazy to solve it right,
> so I want you to accept a wrong solution".
In a way, yes, except that I think that "wrong" is exaggerated.
As DBA I like to have an option to control things from the server
end -- if that's laziness, so be it.
So, should I forget about the GUC or is anybody going to back me?
I'd still be willing to write a patch for a client-only solution.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe