| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT |
| Date: | 2021-08-24 19:12:45 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob=MAyHcPh8iTOg5i-S+UYMjxgJ8nrWpPK0YNULH85b2g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 2:52 PM Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> wrote:
> I don't think that's true of the second proposal in [0]. I don't foresee
> a noticeable runtime cost unless there is a plausible workload that
> involves very frequent updates to GUC settings that are also of interest
> to a bunch of extensions. Maybe I'll take a stab at a POC.
I'm not sure I fully understand that proposal, but I find it hard to
believe that we would seriously consider replacing every direct GUC
reference in the backend with something that goes through an API. Even
if didn't hurt performance, I think it would uglify the code a whole
lot.
And as Peter says, if we're not going to do that, then it's not clear
why extensions should have to.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2021-08-24 19:36:22 | Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-08-24 19:08:49 | Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful |