| From: | Thomas Lockhart <thomas(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 22:32:30 |
| Message-ID: | 3CC33DFE.4E8BB9D1@fourpalms.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
...
> 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.
istm that with the recent discussion of transaction-fying SET variables
that table-fying some settable parameters may be appropriate. Leave out
the "foolish" from the discussion please ;)
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-04-21 23:22:40 | Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-21 22:16:51 | Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-04-21 22:35:47 | Re: Patches applied; initdb time! |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-21 22:16:51 | Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...) |