| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jacob Burroughs <jburroughs(at)instructure(dot)com>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs |
| Date: | 2023-12-29 19:14:46 |
| Message-ID: | 6ba17e4d21f50c3bf8aaff36cae678f86238eb5f.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2023-12-29 at 13:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > 2. It paves the way for GUCs that can only be set using a protocol
> > message (and not using SET).
>
> This is assuming facts not in evidence. Why would we want such a
> thing?
The problem came up during the binary_formats GUC discussion: it
doesn't really make sense to change that with a SQL query, and doing so
can cause strange things to happen.
We already have the issue with client_encoding and binary format COPY,
so arguably it's not worth trying to solve it. But protocol-only GUCs
was one idea that came up.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2023-12-29 19:15:50 | Re: Schema variables - new implementation for Postgres 15 |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2023-12-29 18:42:18 | Re: [17] collation provider "builtin" |