Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd be less unhappy with this patch if the variable were not marked
> GUC_REPORT.  That is what gives it nontrivial cost: it's adding a couple
> dozen bytes to every connection startup exchange, for data that's 100%
> redundant with data already being transmitted.
> 
> The arguments that were made in favor of this patch cited its possible
> use in SQL scripts, but there is no need for the variable to be marked
> GUC_REPORT for that usage.

GUC_REPORT removed.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian   bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

• Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add new variable "server_version_num", which is almost the same at 2006-09-02 16:39:16 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Lukas Kahwe Smith	Date: 2006-09-02 17:09:42
	Subject: Re: Getting a move on for 8.2 beta
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2006-09-02 17:06:28
	Subject: Re: pgstattuple extension for indexes

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2006-09-02 17:10:17
	Subject: pgsql: Revert as not needed/inconsistent with SQL REINDEX: Suppress
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2006-09-02 17:08:10
	Subject: pgsql: Remove GUC_REPORT for new "server_version_num" GUC variable.