Re: Modernizing our GUC infrastructure

Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The bad performance is not the main reason for implementing session
> variables (and in almost all cases the performance of GUC is not a problem,
> because it is not a bottleneck, and in some terrible cases, I can save the
> GUC to a variable). There are other differences:

Well, yeah, the schema-variables patch offers a bunch of other features.
What I'm not sure about is whether there's actually much field demand
for those. I think if we fix guc.c's performance issues and add some
simple features on top of that, like the ability to declare bool, int,
float data types not just string for a user-defined GUC, we'd have
exactly what a lot of people want --- not least because it'd be
upwards-compatible with what they are already doing.

However, that's probably a debate to have on the other thread not here.
This patch doesn't foreclose pushing forward with the schema-variables
patch, if people want that.

regards, tom lane