| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 'Greg Stark' <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, 'Greg Smith' <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 'Boszormenyi Zoltan' <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review] |
| Date: | 2013-03-13 13:13:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20130313131340.GB27988@alap2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-03-13 18:38:12 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:10 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-03-12 10:46:53 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Do you mean to say that because some variables can only be set after
> > restart
> > > can lead to
> > > inconsistency, or is it because of asynchronous nature of
> > pg_reload_conf()?
> >
> > As long as SET PERSISTENT cannot be executed inside a transaction - or
> > only takes effect after its end - there doesn't seem to be any problem
> > executing ProcessConfigFile() directly.
>
> Do you mean to say we call directly ProcessConfigFile() at end of SET
> PERSISTENT instead
> Of pg_reload_conf() but in that case would it load the variables for other
> backends?
I'd say do both. Yes, we would evaluate config potentially twice. Who
cares. Messages inside non-postmaster environments are only output at DEBUG2
anyway.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-03-13 13:22:48 | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review] |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-03-13 13:09:18 | Re: Duplicate JSON Object Keys |