From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Alexey Kluykin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Selena Deckelmann <selena(at)chesnok(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |
Date: | 2011-07-17 04:59:59 |
Message-ID: | 2337.1310878799@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 Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Is there any way that we could get *rid* of custom_variable_classes?
>> Well, we could just drop it and say you can set any dotted-name GUC
>> you feel like.
> ...and the fact that we've made them set an extra GUC to shoot
> themselves in the foot hardly seems like an improvement. I was more
> thinking along the lines of having loadable modules register custom
> variable classes at load time, through some sort of C API provided for
> that purpose, rather than having the user declare a list that may or
> may not match what the .so files really care about.
Well, we *do* have a C API for that, of a sort. The problem is, what do
you do in processes that have not loaded the relevant extension? (And
no, I don't like the answer of "let's force the postmaster to load every
extension we want to set any parameters for".)
I agree custom_variable_classes is conceptually messy, but it's a
reasonably lightweight compromise that gives some error checking without
requiring a lot of possibly-irrelevant extensions to be loaded into
every postgres process.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2011-07-17 14:54:45 | Re: psql: bogus descriptions displayed by \d+ |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-17 03:52:13 | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |