Re: GUC and postgresql.conf docs

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> I'm also still unconvinced that binary data I/O should perform encoding
>> conversion (it does as of CVS tip, but I'm not 100% sold that that's the
>> right choice).

> That depends on what you intend to achieve with the binary format.  For
> some of the numeric types it's obvious, but for strings it's not.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.  Binary-encoded numeric values don't go through
encoding conversion.  Text strings currently do.  The only place where I
had any difficulty deciding what a particular datatype should do is with
the 1-byte "char" type, which has a foot in both camps.  I decided to
treat it as an unconverted single byte (but am willing to listen to
argument if anyone thinks differently).

>> The general mechanism seems necessary in any case, and once we have it,
>> applying it to these particular values isn't adding much bloat.

> But where does it stop?  What's the criterion?

Usefulness to client libraries, I think.  If anyone pops up and says "my
library really needs to know the value of setting X", I'm happy to add X
to the set of values reported by ParameterStatus.  If that set starts to
get large then I'd be willing to think about making it
run-time-configurable --- the only reason it isn't already is we don't
have enough examples to prove the need.
        regards, tom lane