From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Payal Singh <payal(at)omniti(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ALTER ROLE SET/RESET for multiple options |
Date: | 2016-02-17 10:14:50 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoabV-tn4FVTM+a92pW23c9q1WUwYr654E561fqVRe8WkA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Payal Singh <payal(at)omniti(dot)com> wrote:
>>> The feature seems to work as described, but is it necessary to enclose multiple GUC settings in a parenthesis? This seems a deviation from the usual syntax of altering multiple settings separated with comma.
>>
>> Well, note that you can say:
>>
>> ALTER USER bob SET search_path = a, b, c;
>>
>> I'm not sure how the parentheses help exactly; it seems like there is
>> an inherit ambiguity either way.
>>
>
> I thought it would be useful for user who wants to set several GUC
> parameter for each user. Especially the case where changing logging
> parameter for each user.
> But it might not bring us fantastic usability.
Yeah, it doesn't really seem like it's worth trying to figure out a
syntax for this that can work. It just doesn't buy us very much vs.
issuing one ALTER COMMAND per setting.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ioseph Kim | 2016-02-17 10:17:47 | Re: Figures in docs |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-02-17 10:12:47 | Re: Re: Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of ordered [set] aggregates |