On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 12:23:19PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> TBH, I don't want to do that. I think it's too fragile. It's the sort
> of thing that just barely works given the exact behavior of these
> particular GUCs, but it relies on a bunch of subtle assumptions which
> won't be evident to future readers of the code. People will very
> possibly copy this barely-working code into other contexts where it
> doesn't work at all, or they'll think the code implementing this is
> buggy even if it isn't.
Agreed. If there was really no other option, it would at the very least
need a humongous comment that explained why it worked in this specific case
and is unlikely to work in others. But it sounds like we have another
choice...
--
nathan