| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, "'Alvaro Herrera'" <alvherre(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, "'Robert Haas'" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "'Greg Stark'" <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "'Andres Freund'" <andres(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, "'Boszormenyi Zoltan'" <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review] |
| Date: | 2013-03-22 04:58:05 |
| Message-ID: | 23565.1363928285@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 3/21/13 10:39 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> I feel giving Notice after every command doesn't look good, so may be we can
>> mention the same in documentation.
> I think that NOTICE after every command is the only way we'll make sure
> to catch every user who should be notified about the feature's limitation.
We have been around on that type of proposal before. A command that
issues a NOTICE as part of its *standard* behavior is really not going
to fly; the annoyance, talking-down-to-the-user factor is too high.
IOW, if you think the command needs that, then its design is broken
and you need to do better.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-03-22 05:58:19 | Re: Page replacement algorithm in buffer cache |
| Previous Message | Atri Sharma | 2013-03-22 04:51:59 | Page replacement algorithm in buffer cache |