Re: Allow ALTER SYSTEM SET on unrecognized custom GUCs

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: shihao zhong <zhong950419(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrei Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, gavinpanella(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: Allow ALTER SYSTEM SET on unrecognized custom GUCs
Date: 2023-10-19 16:00:21
Message-ID: 3358121.1697731221@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

shihao zhong <zhong950419(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I do like the idea that we should keep the set and the altar system with
> the same behavior. But one thing I am worried about is the typo detected
> here because I usually make that type of mistake myself. I believe we
> should have an extra log to explicitly tell the user this is a `custom
> variable` guc.

I don't think there's any chance of getting away with that. As noted
upthread, a lot of people use placeholder GUCs as a substitute for a
proper session-variable feature. If we ever get real session variables,
we could start to nudge people away from using placeholders; but right
now too many people would complain about the noise of a warning.

> Btw, another aspect I want to better understand is if the superuser session
> called pg_reload_conf with custom variables, does that mean these custom
> variables will override the other active transaction's SET command?

No, a per-session SET will override a value coming from the config file.
That's independent of whether it's a regular or custom GUC.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Laurenz Albe 2023-10-19 16:01:40 Re: [PATCH] Add support function for containment operators
Previous Message Tom Lane 2023-10-19 15:31:58 Re: boolin comment not moved when code was refactored