| From: | James William Pye <x(at)jwp(dot)name> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Overhauling GUCS |
| Date: | 2008-06-13 01:45:32 |
| Message-ID: | 9E60C5E3-E2FB-4EFA-A3A3-F46EFDEB04F5@jwp.name |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> You guys call this "simplification"? You're out of your minds.
> This proposal is ridiculously complicated, and yet it still fails
> even to consider adjusting non-numeric parameters. And what about
> things that require more than a trivial arithmetic expression to
> compute? It's not hard at all to imagine wanting log, sqrt, etc.
>
> We do not need to put computational capability into GUC. Any
> computations needed to determine a parameter setting should be done
> by a wizard.
+1 (save the comment speculating about anyone's location relative to
their mind ;)
Additionally, obvious as it may be, there's nothing stopping anyone
from developing a tool to generate the configuration file from a
more "interesting" source. Whether that's XML or some DSL that
supports computations, doesn't matter. I would think if such a tool
showed dramatic merit it would provoke another discussion about core
integration, but ISTM that leaving it dead simple is best.
[mm, hook into the postgres startup script, shouldn't be that hard to
administer..]
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bryce Nesbitt | 2008-06-13 02:52:59 | Re: TODO Item: Allow pg_hba.conf to specify host names along with IP addresses |
| Previous Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2008-06-13 01:13:31 | Re: Overhauling GUCS |