Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Given these rules, a check_hook and assign_hook could cooperate to store
>> additional data in what guc.c thinks is just a pointer to a string
>> value, ie, there can be more data after the terminating \0. The
>> assign_hook could work off just this additional data without ever doing
>> a catalog lookup. No special show_hook is needed.
> The only thing this proposal has to recommend it is that the current
> coding is even worse.
Well, if you don't like that, do you like this one?
>> Another variant would be to allow the check_hook to pass back a separate
>> "void *" value that could be passed on to the assign_hook, containing
>> any necessary derived data. This is logically a bit cleaner, and would
>> work for all types of GUC variables; but it would make things messier in
>> guc.c since there would be an additional value to pass around. I'm not
>> convinced it's worth that, but could be talked into it if anyone feels
>> strongly about it.
If not, what do you suggest?
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-04-04 19:02:39|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Uppercase SGML entity declarations|
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2011-04-04 18:57:46|
|Subject: Re: Disable optimization when in subtransaction|