From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Stephen Denne" <Stephen(dot)Denne(at)datamail(dot)co(dot)nz>, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Mark Mielke" <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas |
Date: | 2008-04-16 14:27:43 |
Message-ID: | 7401.1208356063@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Really? [ pokes around ... ] Hm, you're right, because
>> add_placeholder_variable() sets the GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL flag, and in this
>> usage it'll never be cleared. I wonder if we should change that.
>>
>> The whole thing is a bit of an abuse of what the mechanism was
>> intended for, and so I'm not sure we should rejigger GUC's behavior
>> to make it more pleasant, but on the other hand if we're not ready to
>> provide a better substitute ...
> While I agree with that part, is there any actual *reason* why we
> shouldn't have the custom variables included in pg_settings?
IIRC, the motivation for doing that was to not expose a completely bogus
set of attributes for a variable whose defining C-module hadn't been
loaded yet.
I thought about this in the shower just now, and ISTM that if we want to
turn this into an actual feature rather than a kluge, there needs to be
some sort of "define variable" command that sets up a custom variable
and specifies its type (and whatever other properties seem worth
setting). IOW expose the DefineCustomFooVariable functions to SQL users.
I'd be a bit inclined to restrict the namespace that can be set up that
way, eg allow only "local." or "session." as the prefix. Maybe
that's just being too anal, but we could guarantee not to introduce
colliding built-in GUCs in future releases, whereas people trying to
define variables with any random name would definitely be at risk.
Comments?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Wöhrer | 2008-04-16 14:36:22 | [Pljava-dev] stack depth limit exceeded - patch possible? |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-04-16 14:27:18 | Re: pgwin32_safestat weirdness |