Re: Inefficient handling of LO-restore + Patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Inefficient handling of LO-restore + Patch
Date: 2002-04-24 14:30:26
Message-ID: 11803.1019658626@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> At 16:46 15/04/02 +0200, Mario Weilguni wrote:
>> And how about getting database internals via SQL-functions - e.g. getting
>> BLCSIZE, LOBBLCSIZE?

> ISTM that there would be some merit in making a selection of compile-time
> options available via SQL. Is this worth considering?

This could usefully be combined with the nearby thread about recording
configuration options (started by Thomas). I'd be inclined to make it
a low-footprint affair where you do something like

select compilation_options();

and you get back a long textual list of var=value settings, say

VERSION=7.3devel
PLATFORM=hppa-hp-hpux10.20, compiled by GCC 2.95.3
BLCKSZ=8192
MULTIBYTE=yes
etc etc etc etc

This would solve the diagnostic need as-is, and it doesn't seem
unreasonable to me to expect applications to look through the output
for a particular line if they need to get the state of a specific
configuration option. It's also trivial to extend/modify as the set
of options changes over time.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2002-04-24 14:57:43 Table checking/dumping program
Previous Message Mario Weilguni 2002-04-24 14:28:05 Re: Inefficient handling of LO-restore + Patch