From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "'Robert Haas'" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "'PostgreSQL-development'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review] |
Date: | 2013-06-07 04:14:42 |
Message-ID: | 004c01ce6335$89ac4cb0$9d04e610$@kapila@huawei.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday, June 06, 2013 10:22 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > On Monday, May 27, 2013 4:17 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 11:55 AM Amit Kapila wote:
> >> > On Tuesday, April 02, 2013 9:49 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>
> >
> > There are 2 options to proceed for this patch for 9.4
> >
> > 1. Upload the SET PERSISTENT syntax patch for coming CF by fixing
> existing
> > review comments
> > 2. Implement new syntax ALTER SYSTEM as proposed in below mail
> >
> > Could you suggest me what could be best way to proceed for this
> patch?
>
> I'm still in favor of some syntax involving ALTER, because it's still
> true that this behaves more like the existing GUC-setting commands
> that use ALTER (which change configuration for future sessions) rather
> the ones that use SET (which change the current settings for some
> period of time).
I will change the patch as per below syntax if there are no objections:
ALTER SYSTEM SET configuration_parameter {TO | =} {value, | 'value'};
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2013-06-07 04:30:51 | Re: Hard limit on WAL space used (because PANIC sucks) |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2013-06-07 02:43:31 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |