Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 25 March 2013 13:02, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> Brendan, how hard would it be to create a GUC for backwards-compatible
>> behavior?
> Good idea.
No, it *isn't* a good idea. GUCs that change application-visible
semantics are dangerous. We should have learned this lesson by now.
regards, tom lane