From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Christensen <david(dot)christensen(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Proof of concept for GUC improvements |
Date: | 2021-08-27 06:19:04 |
Message-ID: | YSiD2JlLvMsKDgmm@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 03:58:57PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> I'm at -0.5 as to whether such a patch would actually be an improvement or
> whether the added possibilities would just be confusing and, because it is
> all optional, indefinitely so.
FWIW, I find this proposition of introducing a set of optional
synonyms to map with some special-case values we have in the
configurations a bit confusing, as that's basically introducing
enum-like options into GUCs that already have a type assigned.
The patch, with its set of options like special_disabled0,
special_disabled_all is not really easy to parse either so that's just
a recipe to make the set of synonyms to grow on an GUC-basis.
What I am wondering, though, is if there are cases in the existing
GUCs, with their existing types, where the situation of a default or
disabled value could be improved, though, to make the overall picture
more consistent.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-08-27 06:32:13 | Re: [PATCH] pgbench: add multiconnect option |
Previous Message | vignesh C | 2021-08-27 06:13:08 | Re: Added schema level support for publication. |