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

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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL
Date: 2012-12-01 16:45:33
Message-ID: 15799.1354380333@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> But even if we can't make that work, it's not grounds for reserving
> PERSISTENT.  Instead I'd be inclined to forget about "RESET PERSISTENT"
> syntax and use, say, SET PERSISTENT var_name TO DEFAULT to mean that.
> (BTW, I wonder what behavior that syntax has now in your patch.)

In fact, rereading this, I wonder why you think "RESET PERSISTENT"
is a good idea even if there were no bison issues with it.  We don't
write RESET LOCAL or RESET SESSION, so it seems asymmetric to have
RESET PERSISTENT.

			regards, tom lane


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-12-01 17:00:46
Subject: Re: --single-transaction hack to pg_upgrade does not work
Previous:From: Andres FreundDate: 2012-12-01 16:38:40
Subject: Re: --single-transaction hack to pg_upgrade does not work

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2013 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group