| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Idea about better configuration options for sort memory |
| Date: | 2004-02-02 16:02:39 |
| Message-ID: | 200402021602.i12G2dO10067@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> After looking at the code a bit, I think the simplest solution is for
> find_option to look in a separate mapping table (mapping from old to new
> option name) if it doesn't find the given name in the main table. This
> would make lookup of "old" names a shade slower than "preferred" names,
> but that doesn't seem like a problem.
>
> With this approach, old GUC names would be recognized in SHOW and SET
> commands, as well as the other ways you can set a variable by name
> (postgresql.conf, ALTER USER SET, etc). But only the new names would
> appear in SHOW ALL or the pg_settings view. Does that seem OK?
Sounds good. The idea that we can keep the names constant seems to be a
losing proposal.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Tibbett | 2004-02-02 16:45:10 | Re: [HACKERS] What's left? |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2004-02-02 15:44:55 | pg_restore bug in 7.4.1 ? |