On Wednesday 02 June 2004 20:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar(at)frodo(dot)hserus(dot)net> writes:
> > Any updates/opinions? Should we convert assign hooks to perform actual
> > assignment and custom validation instead of just custom validation? It is
> > clear from README that it is for validation purposes only..
> As it should be. Assign hooks have no business altering the
> user-supplied value.
> I remain unalterably opposed to the notion of measuring shared_buffers
> in KB, but if you think you can get such a thing in over my objections,
Are you OK with MBs? I am fine with anything.
> the way to do it is to decouple the GUC parameter from NBuffers. The
> GUC setting is whatever it is; you can reject the value if it's too
> far out of range, but you do not editorialize upon it. What you do is
> compute the derived value for NBuffers and assign that in the assign
That means removing NBuffers from declaration for config structure and
substituting a dummy variable for it?
If you think this is good and acceptable enough, I will proceed making changes
that way. Shall I take this as guideline for other parameters as well?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2004-06-02 14:57:05|
|Subject: Re: Nested transactions and tuple header info|
|Previous:||From: Christopher Kings-Lynne||Date: 2004-06-02 14:54:36|
|Subject: Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER|