| From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Alexey Kluykin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, 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 23:37:42 |
| Message-ID: | 0B441EB9-4793-455D-A378-99FF653B58F0@phlo.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jul18, 2011, at 01:29 , Robert Haas wrote:
> Hmm. Maybe what we need is a mechanism that allows the configuration
> to be associated a loadable module, and whenever that module is
> loaded, we also load the associated configuration settings. This is
> probably terribly syntax, but something like:
>
> ALTER LOAD 'plpgsql' SET plpgsql.variable_conflict = 'whatever';
A variant of this would be to allow extensions (in the CREATE EXTENSION
sense) to declare custom GUCs in their control file. Then we'd only
need to load those files, which seems better than loading a shared
library.
We do expect people to wrap their loadable modules in extensions
anyway nowadays, do we?
best regards,
Florian Pflug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2011-07-18 00:20:16 | Re: Reduced power consumption in WAL Writer process |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-17 23:29:10 | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |