| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates |
| Date: | 2000-01-28 16:59:39 |
| Message-ID: | 11010.949078779@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
>> Added to TODO:
>> * Unify configuration into one configuration file
> ... and that is a good example of database design because?? ;)
Good point ;-). OTOH, the existing mishmash of config files and
option-setting methods isn't a good example of any kind of design.
It "just grew".
One thing to consider while contemplating a grand unified config file
(GUC?) is that much of this stuff needs to be settable per-client.
It would be wrong to rip out whatever dynamic option-setting code
there is. Cleaning it up and making a more uniform interface to the
various options does sound like a good project though.
I'd want to see a paper design for how things should work before any
coding starts --- the existing methods do have some non-obvious
advantages. For example, even something as grotty as the PGOPTIONS
environment variable has its uses: you can pass options through to
a backend without needing explicit cooperation from your client
application.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-01-28 17:19:11 | Re: [SQL] RE: [GENERAL] Problem with SELECT on large negative INT4 |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-01-28 16:01:08 | Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates |