From: | Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: schema variables |
Date: | 2017-11-03 12:58:02 |
Message-ID: | CAN-RpxCAHPujQPA9cRrqOABEX2g5Y1p3hasGMp=EE8hagw7cjw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Some thoughts on this.
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com> writes:
> > With access controls, GUCs could become schema variables, and settings
> > from postgresql.conf could move into the database itself (which I think
> > would be nice).
>
> People re-propose some variant of that every so often, but it never works,
> because it ignores the fact that some of the GUCs' values are needed
> before you can access system catalogs at all, or in places where relying
> on system catalog access would be a bad idea.
>
I think the basic point one should get here is that no matter the
unification, you still have some things in the db and some things out.
I would rather look at how the GUC could be improved on a functional/use
case level before we look at the question of a technical solution.
One major use case today would be restricting how high various users can
set something like work_mem or the like. As it stands, there isn't really
a way to control this with any granularity. So some of the proposals
regarding granting access to a session variable would be very handy in
granting access to a GUC variable.
>
> Sure, we could have two completely different configuration mechanisms
> so that some of the variables could be "inside the database", but that
> doesn't seem like a net improvement to me. The point of the Grand Unified
> Configuration mechanism was to be unified, after all.
>
+1
>
> I'm on board with having a totally different mechanism for session
> variables. The fact that people have been abusing GUC to store
> user-defined variables doesn't make it a good way to do that.
>
What about having a more clunky syntax as:
SET VARIABLE foo='bar';
Perhaps one can have a short form of:
SET VAR foo = 'bar';
vs
SET foo = 'bar'; -- GUC
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
--
Best Regards,
Chris Travers
Database Administrator
Tel: +49 162 9037 210 | Skype: einhverfr | www.adjust.com
Saarbrücker Straße 37a, 10405 Berlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-11-03 13:00:15 | Re: parallelize queries containing initplans |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-11-03 12:57:30 | LDAP URI decoding bugs |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gunther | 2017-11-03 14:36:57 | Re: Re: OLAP/reporting queries fall into nested loops over seq scans or other horrible planner choices |
Previous Message | Adam Brusselback | 2017-11-03 12:07:13 | Re: Re: OLAP/reporting queries fall into nested loops over seq scans or other horrible planner choices |