| 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>, 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: | 2024-05-24 13:28:32 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobHT-_H5axY8ioGkw0Qby0-KVcdwymR9Di7frqR_TXU2g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 4:00 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.
OK. That seems fine to me, but I bet Jelte is going to disagree.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2024-05-24 13:45:54 | Re: Question: Why Are File Descriptors Not Closed and Accounted for PostgreSQL Backends? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-05-24 13:26:54 | Re: warn if GUC set to an invalid shared library |