From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Should commit_delay be PGC_SIGHUP? |
Date: | 2013-03-21 18:53:15 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+6bC7M==bxZ3xUbFnXCEBzFY8F2DHQ=Nkjb0rBUG-1Kw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 21 March 2013 18:27, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> This may be true, but so what? We don't generally restrict changing
> GUC settings on the grounds that people probably won't wish to do so
> because it isn't useful. We restrict it in situations where it is not
> technically possible or is liable to be harmful.
>
> I'm of the opinion that we should try to keep as many things
> PGC_USERSET as we possibly can. It makes life easier for DBAs.
Only one setting will be best for the whole cluster, so neither the
user nor the DBA gains if a user sets this to a different value than
the one that has been determined to be optimal.
Since we wait while holding the lock it is actually harmful to
everyone if anybody sets a stupid value and might even be considered a
denial of service attack.
So there is a very good reason to make this SIGHUP, not just a whim.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2013-03-21 19:05:44 | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review] |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-03-21 18:50:48 | Re: hstore compiler warnings |