Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: How about an am_superuser GUC parameter (non-settable)?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: How about an am_superuser GUC parameter (non-settable)?
Date: 2003-04-29 01:17:24
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0304290309060.1928-100000@peter.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane writes:

> Now that CVS tip is rid of the need for libpq to do a "select
> pg_client_encoding()", I am wondering if we shouldn't make an effort
> to get rid of psql's "SELECT usesuper FROM pg_catalog.pg_user ..."
> startup query.  All in the name of reduction of connection startup
> costs, of course.

Well, reducing start-up time for an interactive application from little to
less seems kind of pointless.  (We could avoid that query in
non-interactive use; I'm not sure if we do already.)

I'm a little uneasy with puttting too much extra burden on the GUC
mechanism, which is after all a system to configure the server, not to
retrieve or communicate data.  Even the "server_version" thing recently
added doesn't make me happy.  If an application wants to know that, it
should send a query.

Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-04-29 01:40:45
Subject: Re: How about an am_superuser GUC parameter (non-settable)?
Previous:From: prashanthDate: 2003-04-29 01:14:39
Subject: LISTEN/NOTIFY benchmarks?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group