From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>,<pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Compatibility GUC for serializable |
Date: | 2011-01-11 01:16:04 |
Message-ID: | 4D2B5AF40200002500039261@gw.wicourts.gov |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Really, the biggest risk of such a GUC is the confusion factor
>> when supporting people.
> How is this different from our other backwards-compatibility GUCs?
I thought Tom might be concerned about such a GUC destabilizing
things in other ways. I just wanted to make clear how unlikely that
was in this case. I agree that the risk of confusion in support is
always there with a backwards-compatibility GUC.
I'm still not taking a position either way on this, since I can see
the merit of both arguments and it has little impact on me,
personally. I'm just trying to be up-front about things so people
can make an informed decision.
-Kevin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-11 01:17:50 | Re: GIN indexscans versus equality selectivity estimation |
Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2011-01-11 01:13:47 | Re: Weird issues when reading UDT from stored function |