Re: Configuration Parameter/GUC value validation hook

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Configuration Parameter/GUC value validation hook
Date: 2022-05-02 14:54:45
Message-ID: 1845018.1651503285@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I propose to add a simple new hook in set_config_option (void
> set_config_option_hook(struct config_generic *record);) and the
> vendors can implement their own platform-dependent extensions to
> accept or reject certain parameters (based on platform/VM
> configuration) that are of interest to them.

This seems entirely useless. Vendors are unlikely to have any better
idea than we do about what are "reasonable" values. Moreover, if they
did, modifying the source code directly would be an easier route to
introducing their code than making use of a hook (which'd require
finding a way to ensure that some extension is loaded).

In general, I think you need a much more concrete use-case than this
before proposing a new hook. Otherwise we're going to have tons of
hooks that we don't know whether they're actually useful or being
used by anyone.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2022-05-02 14:56:16 Re: strange slow query - lost lot of time somewhere
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2022-05-02 14:53:34 Re: Proposal for internal Numeric to Uint64 conversion function.