On 2023-03-03 Fr 13:46, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> We can easily do better, as attached, but I wonder which other
>> headers should get the same treatment.
> After a bit of further research I propose the attached. I'm not
> sure exactly what subset of ECPG headers is meant to be exposed
> to clients, but we can adjust these patterns if new info emerges.
>
> This is actually moving the inclusion-check goalposts quite far,
> but HEAD seems to pass cleanly, and again we can always adjust later.
> Any objections?
>
LGTM
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com