| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: I am done |
| Date: | 2002-09-04 13:35:59 |
| Message-ID: | 26805.1031146559@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Does anyone else have an opinion on this? If not, I will implement it per
> Bruce's commentary.
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I think the second, passing an arg to say whether it is server or
>> client, will do the trick, though now you need an error one too. I
>> guess you have to use #define and set it, or pass a string down with the
>> GUC variable and test that with strcmp.
I think you're going to end up un-merging the routines. There is no way
to pass an extra parameter to the set/check routines (at least not
without uglifying all the rest of the GUC code). The design premise is
that the per-variable hook routines know what they're supposed to do,
and in that case this means one hook for each variable.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-04 13:38:29 | Re: I am done |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-09-04 13:04:51 | Re: FW: [GWAVA:fku1fb18] Source block message notification |