On Sunday, November 18, 2012 3:22 PM Cédric Villemain wrote:
> Le samedi 17 novembre 2012 22:57:49, Tom Lane a écrit :
> > Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > Do we really need to store the settings in a system table?
> > > Since WAL would be generated when storing the settings in a system
> > > table, this approach seems to prevent us from changing the settings
> > > in the standby.
> > That's a really good point: if we try to move all GUCs into a system
> > table, there's no way for a standby to have different values; and for
> > some of them different values are *necessary*.
> > I think that shoots down this line of thought entirely. Can we go
> > back to the plain "write a file" approach now? I think a "SET
> > PERSISTENT" command that's disallowed in transaction blocks and just
> > writes the file immediately is perfectly sensible.
> I was justifying the usage of a table structure, not to keep it in sync
> (just use it to hide the complexity of locks).
> Anyway that was just comments.
You comments are thought provoking. I was able to proceed for table
related approach based on your suggestions.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Michael Paquier||Date: 2012-11-19 07:28:55|
|Subject: Re: logical changeset generation v3|
|Previous:||From: Amit Kapila||Date: 2012-11-19 07:01:00|
|Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL|