| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TODO item: Allow more complex user/database default GUC settings |
| Date: | 2009-09-23 18:10:39 |
| Message-ID: | 5046.1253729439@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Robert Haas escribi:
>> So here's the followup question - do you intend to do one of those
>> things for this CommitFest, or should we mark this as Returned with
>> Feedback once Bernd posts the rest of his review?
> What feedback is it supposed to be returned with? Precisely what I
> wanted is some feedback on the general idea. Brendan's "I like the
> approach" is good, but is it enough to deter a later veto from someone
> else?
FWIW, I looked the patch over quickly, and I think it will be fine once
Bernd's comments are addressed. In particular I agree with the
objection to the name "pg_setting" as being confusingly close to
"pg_settings". But "pg_user_setting" isn't better. Maybe
"pg_db_role_settings"?
As far as the lock issue goes, I don't see any reason why the catalog
change creates a reason for new/different locking than we had before.
Any attempt to make concurrent updates to the same row will generate an
error, and that seems enough to me ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-09-23 18:14:17 | Re: Unicode Normalization |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-09-23 18:08:14 | Unicode Normalization |