From: | Cédric Villemain <cedric(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL |
Date: | 2012-11-18 09:52:24 |
Message-ID: | 201211181052.28624.cedric@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le samedi 17 novembre 2012 22:57:49, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Do we really need to store the settings in a system table?
> > Since WAL would be generated when storing the settings
> > in a system table, this approach seems to prevent us from
> > changing the settings in the standby.
>
> That's a really good point: if we try to move all GUCs into a system
> table, there's no way for a standby to have different values; and for
> some of them different values are *necessary*.
>
> I think that shoots down this line of thought entirely. Can we go
> back to the plain "write a file" approach now? I think a "SET
> PERSISTENT" command that's disallowed in transaction blocks and just
> writes the file immediately is perfectly sensible.
I was justifying the usage of a table structure, not to keep it in sync (just
use it to hide the complexity of locks).
Anyway that was just comments.
--
Cédric Villemain +33 (0)6 20 30 22 52
http://2ndQuadrant.fr/
PostgreSQL: Support 24x7 - Développement, Expertise et Formation
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-11-18 11:37:58 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-11-18 05:24:02 | Re: Do we need so many hint bits? |