| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL |
| Date: | 2012-11-07 18:58:13 |
| Message-ID: | 12959.1352314693@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> ... we don't normally read the config file within-commands,
>> and there are both semantic and implementation problems to overcome
>> if you want to do so.
> Why would you need to? It seems to me that we ought to be able to
> rewrite a machine-generated configuration file without loading those
> values into the current session.
Well, Magnus' proposed implementation supposed that the existing values
*have* been loaded into the current session. I agree that with some
locking and yet more code you could implement it without that. But this
still doesn't seem to offer any detectable benefit over value-per-file.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-11-07 19:20:55 | Re: crash in DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-11-07 18:47:54 | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL |