Re: [PATCH] Proof of concept for GUC improvements

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> My impression is that there's not a lot of enthusiasm for the concept? If
> that's true we maybe ought to mark the CF entry as rejected?

Yeah, I'm kind of leaning that way too.  I don't see how we can
incorporate the symbolic values into any existing display paths
without breaking applications that expect the old output.
That being the case, it seems like we'd have "two ways to do it"
indefinitely, which would add enough confusion that I'm not
sure there's a net gain.  In particular, I foresee novice questions
along the lines of "I set foo to disabled, why is it showing
as zero?".

If we'd done it like this from the beginning, it'd have been
great, but retrofitting it now is a lot less appealing.

            regards, tom lane