From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Dan Ports" <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: autovacuum and default_transaction_isolation |
Date: | 2011-11-30 19:53:02 |
Message-ID: | 4ED6353E0200002500043676@gw.wicourts.gov |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> For the moment I duplicated the existing logic of overriding
> relevant GUC variables in the process's Main() function,
Thanks!
> but I wonder if we ought to be setting these things in some more
> centralized place, like InitPostgres(). That function already
> knows quite a bit about what sort of process it's initializing ...
It does seem like the sort of thing which might get missed when
creating a new type of process or a new GUC which needs this type of
treatment. Whichever placement seems most likely to get noticed
seems best; one centralized placement seems to me most likely to
attract notice and the necessary thought on the topic
-Kevin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2011-11-30 20:13:25 | Re: Java LISTEN/NOTIFY client library work-around |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-30 18:45:15 | Re: Large number of open(2) calls with bulk INSERT into empty table |