Re: autovacuum and default_transaction_isolation

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Dan Ports" <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: autovacuum and default_transaction_isolation
Date: 2011-11-30 19:53:02
Message-ID: 4ED6353E0200002500043676@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> For the moment I duplicated the existing logic of overriding
> relevant GUC variables in the process's Main() function,

Thanks!

> but I wonder if we ought to be setting these things in some more
> centralized place, like InitPostgres(). That function already
> knows quite a bit about what sort of process it's initializing ...

It does seem like the sort of thing which might get missed when
creating a new type of process or a new GUC which needs this type of
treatment. Whichever placement seems most likely to get noticed
seems best; one centralized placement seems to me most likely to
attract notice and the necessary thought on the topic

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joel Jacobson 2011-11-30 20:13:25 Re: Java LISTEN/NOTIFY client library work-around
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-11-30 18:45:15 Re: Large number of open(2) calls with bulk INSERT into empty table