| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mikko Tiihonen <mikko(dot)tiihonen(at)nitorcreations(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GUC_REPORT for protocol tunables was: Re: Optimize binary serialization format of arrays with fixed size elements |
| Date: | 2012-01-23 16:20:52 |
| Message-ID: | 778.1327335652@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Now that I think about it, same applies to bytea_output?
> Probably so. But I think we need not introduce quite so many new
> threads on this patch. This is, I think, at least thread #4, and
> that's making the discussion hard to follow.
Well, this is independent of the proposed patch, so I think a separate
thread is okay. The question is "shouldn't bytea_output be marked
GUC_REPORT"? I think that probably it should be, though I wonder
whether we're not too late. Clients relying on it to be transmitted are
not going to work with existing 9.0 or 9.1 releases; so maybe changing
it to be reported going forward would just make things worse.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2012-01-23 16:33:41 | Re: Re: Add minor version to v3 protocol to allow changes without breaking backwards compatibility |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-01-23 16:17:28 | Re: Inline Extension |