Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'Robert Haas'" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "'Fujii Masao'" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "'Dimitri Fontaine'" <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, <cedric(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "'Greg Smith'" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "'Josh Berkus'" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "'Magnus Hagander'" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "'Christopher Browne'" <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, "'Alvaro Herrera'" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL
Date: 2012-12-01 08:09:04
Message-ID: 004c01cdcf9b$21c2fdc0$6548f940$@kapila@huawei.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Saturday, December 01, 2012 1:30 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Amit kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >> 5. PERSISTENT Keyword is added to the reserved keyword list. As it
> was giving some errors given below while parsing gram.y
> >> 15 shift/reduce conflicts .
> 
> > Allow me to be the first to say that any syntax for this feature that
> > involves reserving new keywords is a bad syntax.
> 
> Let me put that a little more strongly: syntax that requires reserving
> words that aren't reserved in the SQL standard is unacceptable.
> 
> Even if the new word is reserved according to SQL, we'll frequently
> try pretty hard to avoid making it reserved in Postgres, so as not to
> break existing applications.  But if it's not in the standard then
> you're breaking applications that can reasonably expect not to get
> broken.
> 
> But having said that, it's not apparent to me why inventing SET
> PERSISTENT should require reserving PERSISTENT.  In the existing
> syntaxes SET LOCAL and SET SESSION, there's not been a need to
> reserve LOCAL or SESSION.  Maybe you're just trying to be a bit
> too cute in the grammar productions?  Frequently there's more than
> one way to do it and not all require the same level of keyword
> reservedness.

The problem is due to RESET PERSISTENT configuration_variable Syntax.
I think the reason is that configuration_variable name can also be
persistent, so its not able to resolve.
I have tried quite a few ways. I shall try some more and send you result of
all.

If you have any idea or any hint where similar syntax is used, please point
me I will refer it.

Any other Suggestions?

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Albe LaurenzDate: 2012-12-01 10:42:22
Subject: Re: Hot Standby Feedback should default to on in 9.3+
Previous:From: Kohei KaiGaiDate: 2012-12-01 07:57:50
Subject: Re: [v9.3] OAT_POST_ALTER object access hooks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group