| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Extend namespace of valid guc names |
| Date: | 2013-09-06 22:31:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20130906223110.GD626072@alap2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-09-06 14:48:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2013-09-06 10:13:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Well, if you feel an absolute compulsion to make them consistent, I'd
> >> go with making SET disallow creation of variables with names the file
> >> parser wouldn't recognize. But why is it such a bad thing if SET can
> >> do that?
>
> > Also, ALTER SYSTEM SET is going to need a similar restriction as well,
> > otherwise the server won't restart although the GUCs pass validation...
>
> Well, sure, but I would think that ALTER SYSTEM SET should be constrained
> to only set known GUCs, not invent new ones on the fly.
Hm. That sounds inconvenient to me. Consider something like configuring
the system to use auto_explain henceforth.
ALTER SYSTEM SET shared_preload_libraries = 'auto_explain';
ALTER SYSTEM SET auto_explain.log_min_duration = 100;
It seems weird to forbid doing that and requiring a manual LOAD when we
don't do so for normal SETs. I can live with the restriction if we
decide it's a good idea, I just wouldn't appreciate it.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-09-06 22:41:58 | Re: [RFC] Extend namespace of valid guc names |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-09-06 22:26:23 | Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans |