| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Joshua Brindle <joshua(dot)brindle(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joe Conway <joe(at)crunchydata(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Granting SET and ALTER SYSTE privileges for GUCs |
| Date: | 2022-03-17 13:52:34 |
| Message-ID: | 85c84295-6a1b-80ac-b9c4-62413a8e5b60@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16.03.22 19:59, Mark Dilger wrote:
> Informally, we often use "GUC" on this list, but that isn't used formally, leaving "configuration parameter" and "setting" as the two obvious choices. I preferred "configuration parameter" originally and was argued out of it. My take on "setting" was also that it more naturally refers to the choice of setting, not the thing being set, such that "work_mem = 8192" means the configuration parameter "work_mem" has the setting "8192".
"The current setting of the work_mem parameter is 8192."
I think something based on "parameter" is good. We also use that
language in the protocol (e.g., ParameterStatus).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-03-17 13:54:57 | Re: Granting SET and ALTER SYSTE privileges for GUCs |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2022-03-17 13:31:06 | Re: XID formatting and SLRU refactorings (was: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15) |