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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, "'Boszormenyi Zoltan'" <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "'Robert Haas'" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]
Date: 2013-01-24 17:30:02
Message-ID: 20813.1359048602@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Backend A: does SET PERSISTENT foobar =..;
> Backend B: does SET PERSISTENT foobar =..;

> Now B overwrites the config change A has made as they are all stored in
> the same file.

Say what? I thought the plan was one setting per file, so that we don't
get involved in having to parse-and-edit the file contents. What was
all that argument about a new directory, if we're only using one file?

If we are using just one file, then I agree a lock would be needed to
synchronize updates. But that seems to add a lot of complication
elsewhere.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2013-01-24 17:32:12 Re: proposal: fix corner use case of variadic fuctions usage
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2013-01-24 17:28:28 Re: pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?