[postgis-devel] GUC, anyone ?

[Sandro Santilli]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 09:17:27AM -0800, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> Right, my favourite GUC was output precision. It's a hard call, since
> anything which is a GUC could also be a function parameter instead...
> so there's a philosophy to it.

Well, consider AsGML.
Is there any philosopher loving the current parameters set ?
Precision is a good candidate.

IMHO parameters would override defaults, which would be driven
by GUC.

Of course SQL-defined defaults (those defined by DEFAULT=xxy) won't work
nicely this way. We'd need the multi-signature way of doing defaults instead,
which we recently kind of got rid of.

Another way would be SQL-defined defaults being NULL, function being
non-strict and implementations using GUC defaults on NULL.

Output precision seems a good candidate to me for an experimental GUC.

--strk; 

  ,------o-. 
  |   __/  |    Thank you for PostGIS-2.0 Topology !
  |  / 2.0 |    http://www.pledgebank.com/postgistopology
  `-o------'