| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GUC values - recommended way to declare the C variables? |
| Date: | 2022-10-13 21:26:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20221013212635.GA1568479@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 09:47:25AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> So, the initial values of max_wal_senders and max_replication_slots
> became out of sync with their defaults in guc_tables.c. FWIW, I would
> argue the opposite way: rather than removing the initializations, I
> would fix and keep them as these references can be useful when
> browsing the area of the code related to such GUCs, without having to
> look at guc_tables.c for this information.
Well, those initializations are only useful when they are kept in sync,
which, as demonstrated by this patch, isn't always the case. I don't have
a terribly strong opinion about this, but I'd lean towards reducing the
number of places that track the default value of GUCs.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2022-10-13 21:28:15 | Re: New docs chapter on Transaction Management and related changes |
| Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2022-10-13 21:06:31 | WIP: Analyze whether our docs need more granular refentries. |