| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Jacob Burroughs <jburroughs(at)instructure(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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: | 2024-01-05 17:41:56 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZs-mZH77=yuKzaGUoLXO21BNO-K38nJ2UAZH+h2dOsEw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 12:35 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think it'd be quite simple. As I said, it's just a small variation
> on how some GUCs already work. The only thing that's really
> transactional is SQL-driven updates, which'd be disallowed for this
> class of variables.
Well, I know better than to tell you something is hard if you think
it's easy. :-)
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-01-05 17:46:20 | Re: verify predefined LWLocks have entries in wait_event_names.txt |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-01-05 17:41:13 | Re: Issue in postgres_fdw causing unnecessary wait for cancel request reply |