| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL |
| Date: | 2012-11-07 20:15:07 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoaqb_sWzEVLju85vBsmDOMsSFUH_xUQ8pzK+8=kEQUx5A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> Well, Magnus' proposed implementation supposed that the existing values
>> *have* been loaded into the current session. I agree that with some
>> locking and yet more code you could implement it without that. But this
>> still doesn't seem to offer any detectable benefit over value-per-file.
>
> Well, value-per-file is ugly (imagine you've set 40 different variables
> that way) but dodges a lot of complicated issues. And I suppose "ugly"
> doesn't matter, because the whole idea of the auto-generated files is
> that users aren't supposed to look at them anyway.
That's pretty much how I feel about it, too. I think value-per-file
is an ugly wimp-out that shouldn't really be necessary to solve this
problem. It can't be that hard to rewrite a file where every like is
of the form:
key = 'value'
However, as Josh said upthread, +1 for the implementation that will
get committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-11-07 20:29:36 | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2012-11-07 19:50:14 | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL |