| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Karl O(dot) Pinc" <kop(at)meme(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Doc patch, normalize search_path in index |
| Date: | 2013-01-25 18:41:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20130125184143.GF6848@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 01:35:49PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > I have applied a modified version of your patch that creates separate
> > secondary index references for search_path.
>
> This patch seems pretty bizarre. What is the difference between a
> "configuration parameter" and a "run-time setting"? Why would you
> point people to two different places for those two terms?
I think he is trying to distinguish between the parameter and the
setting of the parameter, and also its use for security. No one really
replied to the email so I thought the distinction was accpetable.
Should I make them both "configuration parameter" and leave the
"security" as a second one separate?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-25 18:42:48 | Re: Doc patch, normalize search_path in index |
| Previous Message | Dhruv Ahuja | 2013-01-25 18:36:49 | Re: "pg_ctl promote" exit status |