| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, cedric(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL |
| Date: | 2012-11-17 21:57:49 |
| Message-ID: | 14946.1353189469@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-11-17 23:10:12 | Re: Doc patch, put pg_temp into the documentation's index |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-17 21:53:31 | Re: Do we need so many hint bits? |