Re: READ ONLY fixes

Robert Haas  wrote:
> Upon further review, I am wondering if it wouldn't be simpler and
> more logical to allow idempotent changes of these settings at any
> time, and to restrict only changes that actually change something.
I don't care a lot about that either -- if I remember correctly, we
got here based largely on my somewhat tentative interpretation of the
standard.  Even if my reading was right (of which I'm far from sure),
it would just mean that we have an extension to the standard in
allowing the benign declarations.  I'm sure not going to lose any
sleep over that.
I'll do whatever people want in this regard with no reservations.
-Kevin