| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Jacob Burroughs <jburroughs(at)instructure(dot)com>, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs |
| Date: | 2024-05-23 20:00:46 |
| Message-ID: | 514363.1716494446@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I think part of the reason we ended up with the protocol parameters =
> GUCs thing is because you seemed to be concurring with that approach
> upthread. I think it was Jelte's idea originally, but I interpreted
> some of your earlier remarks to be supporting it. I'm not sure whether
> you've revised your opinion, or just refined it, or whether we
> misinterpreted your earlier remarks.
I don't recall exactly what I thought earlier, but now I think we'd
be better off with separate infrastructure. guc.c is unduly complex
already. Perhaps there are bits of it that could be factored out
and shared, but I bet not a lot.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2024-05-23 20:34:09 | Re: Speed up JSON escape processing with SIMD plus other optimisations |
| Previous Message | Marcos Pegoraro | 2024-05-23 19:54:28 | Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes |