| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <thomas(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...) |
| Date: | 2002-04-21 22:16:51 |
| Message-ID: | 27722.1019427411@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <thomas(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:
>> However, it seems to me way past time that we did what needs to be done
>> with variable.c --- ie, get rid of it. All these special-cased
>> variables should be folded into GUC.
> Or in some cases into pg_database? We might want some of this to travel
> as database-specific properties adjustable using SQL or SET syntax.
Ah, but we *have* that ability right now; see Peter's recent changes
to support per-database and per-user GUC settings. The functionality
available for handling GUC-ified variables is now so far superior to
plain SET that it's really foolish to consider having any parameters
that are outside GUC control.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-04-21 22:32:30 | Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...) |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-04-21 22:01:42 | Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-04-21 22:32:30 | Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-21 22:11:05 | Re: Patches applied; initdb time! |