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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL
Date: 2012-12-01 16:45:33
Message-ID: 15799.1354380333@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> But even if we can't make that work, it's not grounds for reserving
> PERSISTENT. Instead I'd be inclined to forget about "RESET PERSISTENT"
> syntax and use, say, SET PERSISTENT var_name TO DEFAULT to mean that.
> (BTW, I wonder what behavior that syntax has now in your patch.)

In fact, rereading this, I wonder why you think "RESET PERSISTENT"
is a good idea even if there were no bison issues with it. We don't
write RESET LOCAL or RESET SESSION, so it seems asymmetric to have
RESET PERSISTENT.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-12-01 17:00:46 Re: --single-transaction hack to pg_upgrade does not work
Previous Message Andres Freund 2012-12-01 16:38:40 Re: --single-transaction hack to pg_upgrade does not work