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: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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 |