| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Idea about better configuration options for sort memory | 
| Date: | 2004-02-02 01:23:46 | 
| Message-ID: | 26290.1075685026@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, I am going to look at whether GUC can be persuaded to continue to
>> allow "sort_mem" as an alternate name, if we rename it.  That would
>> alleviate most of the backward-compatibility issues of changing such
>> a well-known parameter name.
> Good. It is not like we have a huge namespace limitation in there.  I
> wonder if we could cost it as a list of string pointers, null
> terminated.
After looking at the code a bit, I think the simplest solution is for
find_option to look in a separate mapping table (mapping from old to new
option name) if it doesn't find the given name in the main table.  This
would make lookup of "old" names a shade slower than "preferred" names,
but that doesn't seem like a problem.
With this approach, old GUC names would be recognized in SHOW and SET
commands, as well as the other ways you can set a variable by name
(postgresql.conf, ALTER USER SET, etc).  But only the new names would
appear in SHOW ALL or the pg_settings view.  Does that seem OK?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-02-02 02:00:34 | Re: Idea about better configuration options for sort memory | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-02 01:11:34 | Re: fork/exec |