| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT |
| Date: | 2021-08-22 13:29:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20210822132901.ztlervolfdbqypw4@nol |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 09:19:42AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Uh, no, it's exactly *not* clear. There are a lot of GUCs that are only
> of interest to particular subsystems. I do not see why being a GUC makes
> something automatically more interesting than any other global variable.
> Usually, the fact that one is global is only so the GUC machinery itself
> can get at it, otherwise it'd be static in the owning module.
>
> As for "extensions should be able to get at the values", the GUC machinery
> already provides uniform mechanisms for doing that safely. Direct access
> to the variable's internal value would be unsafe in many cases.
Then shouldn't we try to prevent direct access on all platforms rather than
only one?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-08-22 13:58:03 | Re: Allow parallel DISTINCT |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-08-22 13:22:43 | Re: Spelling change in LLVM 14 API |