Alvaro Herrera escreveu:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>>> Still far from convinced on that one. But effective_io_concurrency
>>> should be included even in the first pass.
>> I think a design that is limited to a prespecified set of GUCs is
>> broken by definition. It'd be better to make it work like
>> ALTER DATABASE SET.
> Well, not exactly like ALTER DATABASE SET because those are now stored
> in pg_db_role_setting. But a new spcoptions column storing an array of
> key/value pairs seems a reasonable way to do it.
+1. That's what I have in mind too.
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-10-27 15:22:48|
|Subject: Re: Endgame for all those SELECT FOR UPDATE changes: fix plan node order |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-10-27 14:50:23|
|Subject: FOR UPDATE versus WITH --- change 8.4 too?|