Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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